Panel debates fathers child-custody rights
April 25, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
Note from ANCPR: The comment below by Republican Shirley Bowler, should put to rest any idea that the Republican party is any friend of parent’s rights. THis article pretty much illustrates what the prevailing opinion is in the western world concerning children and parents of divorce – the judge is the only one with the power to dictate time with the child. Once that is done, it is the power of the custodial parent.
2theadvocate.com | News | Panel debates fathers’ child-custody rights
A House committee Monday narrowly approved legislation that its promoter says would remove an angle some divorced fathers use to lower child-support payments.
Rep. Shirley Bowler, R-River Ridge, said some fathers have used a misinterpretation over the meaning of “joint custody†to argue that they deserve more time with their children and therefore should pay less child support.
House Bill 315 would allow judges to decide on their own whether to grant shared custody of children to divorcing parents and give the parents the ability to test shared custody arrangements for six months.
The House Civil Law Committee, on a 4-3 vote, recommended the full House consider the measure favorably.
Child-support payments are calculated using complex tables that weigh the parents’ comparative incomes as well as how much time the child lives with a particular parent.
Katherine Spaht, an LSU law professor, said existing law says judges should presume that joint custody is in the best interest of the children.
Some courts have interpreted that to mean the two parents are required to share physical time with the children, she said.
But joint custody means the divorced parents should have frequent and continuing contact.
“That’s it,†Spaht said.
Judges can decide how much time the child should spend with each parent. Bowler’s bill, for which Spaht testified, helps clarify the Legislature’s original meaning to joint custody.
Rep. Loulan Pitre, R-Raceland, testified against HB315, arguing that it would take away fathers’ rights to raise their children and reinforce the prejudice against fathers in divorce proceedings.
“Society tells us that mothers get to parent and fathers get to visit,†Pitre said. “This committee is reinforcing that message.â€
Jim Shreve of Baton Rouge said Bowler’s legislation would restrict a father’s right to help raise his children that earlier legislatures had granted.
“I find that to be deplorable. These laws have created a presumption of deceit. This bill wants to extend the deceit,†Shreve said.
Voting for HB315 was Reps Bowler, Ernie Alexander, R-Lafayette, Ronnie Johns, R-Sulphur, and Monica Walker, D-Hessmer.
Voting against the bill was Reps Robby Carter, D-Greensburg, Rick Gallot, D-Ruston, Joel Robideaux, I-Lafayette.
The bill now goes to the full House for debate.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
This is going to be one close call. Shirley Bower is a complete idiot, she just reinforced that it’s still about the money. Fathers main objective to spend more time and actually be part of parenting is what we all want, the fundementals of parenting, not to get a freakin’ discount. Who’s train is she on?
I checked into the party affiliation of the people who supposedly voted on this legislation.
In Favor:
Shirley Bowler – Republican
Monica Walker – Democrat
Ronnie Johns – Republican
Ernie Alexander – Republican
The following are not on the list of Representatives.
R – Lafayette
R – Sulfer
D – Hessmer
Opposed:
Robby Carter – Democrat
Rick Gallot – Democrat
Joel Robideaux – Independent
The following are not on the list of Representatives.
D – Greensburg
D – Ruston
I – Lafayette
http://house.louisiana.gov/H-Reps/members
It seems this only illustrates what most of us have known all along, that much of the ignorance is bipartisan, not strictly along party lines. However, to say that this one vote on a bill in the “Louisiana house†proves anything is extremely “near-sightedâ€, in my opinion.
I think that these issues need to be exposed to the light of day on a national scale in order to get a clear picture of where each party really stands. Most of the current legislation that discriminates against men and fathers originated in the Clinton era when the “Democrats†had control of capital hill.
Minnesota is one of the most “liberal†states in the country. The state was carried by every Democratic Candidate all the way back to Eisenhower. They voted for favorites like, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, need I say more. Minnesota is a bastion of liberalism and a stronghold for “Democrats†for over 45 years and has some of the most anti-father/anti-male laws in the country. If I wanted to take the time to do the research, I’m sure I could crash your server with a very long list of legislation voted on by Democrats that is very anti-father.
Go to http://www.draz.com and see where this Republican stands. I challenge anyone to find a Democrat that supports our cause the way this man does. Click on “Where Steve Stands†and read his position on “Familiesâ€.
Kevin Merck
Try this link.
http://house.legis.state.la.us/
Kevin Merck
Sorry about that folks. I just realized my mistake. Those must be the districts they represent, not the names of representatives. Oh well, I guess I jumped the gun on that, but I think my argument is a good one.
Let’s see where the parties stand on a national scale and not base a “frame of mind†on one vote in the “Louisiana houseâ€. I think most Americans would agree that Shirley Bowler does not speak for all Republicans.
Kevin Merck
To me the most telling aspect of this vote is that the two females are in support of the measure and three men are opposed.
It looks to me like Shirley and Monica may have been owed favors by Ernie and Ronnie. After all, that’s the way it works, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
Anyway, Shirley Bowler is no more representative of all Republicans than Monica Walker is representative of all Democrats. What’s interesting is that the only two females to vote, voted to discriminate against fathers.
Kevin Merck
Thank you gentlemen for posting and discussing this bill.
If you are good at searching, the Louisiana legislature has a great web site (www.legis.state.la.us). On it, you can find the video of the hearings.
This is the same bill as HB92 (by BOWLER) from last year.
On that one, we lost 11-0 in the House Committee; something like 77 to 13 with 12 abstensions in the House; and managed to stop it in the Senate Subcomittee by a vote of 2-1. (Phew).
By the way, the Senate Subcomittee hearing (which was stopped in my mid testimony on the first day…GRIN… and then reheard a week later) was the FIRST time that a representative of DSS came out in support of our position.
This bill (in its original form) wanted to limit Worksheet B (for Shared Custody) to only exactly 50/50 cases and in those case, to allow the judge to deviate anywhere between Worksheet A (Sole custody) and Worksheet B (Shared Custody).
In my example, that was a monthly difference ranging from $900/month to $100/month. As such, there would not longer be a presumtive table for child support and the bill would not meet the requirements of federal law.
Mr. Tim Patrick (Louisiana Children and Family Foundation – LaCFF.INFO) helped lead the fight against it. In the reputal phase, we had him sitting up there by himself with Rep Bowler on the left amending the bill and Professor Katherine Spaht on the other side trying to amend the bill to get something, anything passed so they could say that ‘shared parenting’ was no longer part of our laws.
We found out later that Rep Bowler then got a ‘study resolution’ (HSCR4) passed that year to ‘study’ the issue. They did that the week before this session started and the LSU professor claimed that the literature was not clear supporting Shared Custody. {Only 3 repressentatives bothered to attend – Ansardi, Bowler, and Alexander out of the full body of the House and Senate committees}. We had a great turnout on that date – and a number of ladies stepped forward to support our position. Weeehhhaaaa.
Anyway, Rep Bowler reintroduced the exact same bill again (HB315 of 2006 same as HB92 of 2005). We were ‘successful’ in getting it modified extensively in committee – now up to 17 amendments by Rep Bowler.
DSS again stepped up to the plate (‘for information only’) and was extremely valuable in getting the worst of the child support information removed.
Testifying for the bill were Rep. Bowler; Judge Morrison – Livingston – District Judges President (or something like that); Prof Spaht – LSU; Prof Getty – Southern {she teaches ‘constitutional law’, pitty she doesn’t recognize it for men}
We just had three guys to counter the bill that day. We thought we had it bottled up, but one of the proponents claimed that “Family Forum” supported the bill. This mis-representation is what did us in with the two men – Rep Alexander and Rep Johns – 100% supporters of family forum.
Mr. Patrick was able to get this misrepresentation cleared up and clariffied. As a result, the bill was read in the house and returned to the calendar. We hope we have it stopped there and she lets it die on the floor.
Reps Greene and Pitre are helping organize the floor fight.
What we need is for Louisiana citizens to call in and ask their House Rep. to vote against it.
Nicholas James
President – LaDads
HB127 (by BOWLER) just FAILED. Mr. Tim Patrick called it the “Throw Grandma from the Train Act”.
It would have made it much harder for grandparents to get time with their grandchildren.
Weeee haaaaaa
FINAL PASSAGE
YEAS
Alario Fannin Martiny
Ansardi Frith Montgomery
Arnold Geymann Odinet
Badon Glover Pierre
Bowler Gray Quezaire
Burns Guillory, E. Scalise
Burrell Heaton Smith, G.
Cazayoux Hebert Toomy
Crowe Hill Townsend
Curtis Honey Trahan
Damico Johns Triche
DeWitt Kleckley Walker
Downs LaFonta Winston
Durand Lancaster Wooton
Total–42
NAYS
Mr. Speaker Gallot Powell, M.
Alexander Greene Powell, T.
Baldone Guillory, M. Ritchie
Barrow Hammett Robideaux
Beard Hopkins Romero
Bruce Hunter Schneider
Bruneau Hutter Smiley
Carter, R. Jackson Smith, J.D.–50th
Chandler Katz Smith, J.H.–8th
Crane Kennard Smith, J.R.–30th
Cravins LaFleur St. Germain
Daniel Lambert Strain
Dartez Marchand Thompson
Doerge McDonald Waddell
Dove McVea Walsworth
Erdey Morrish White
Farrar Pinac
Faucheux Pitre
Total–52
ABSENT
Baudoin Harris Morrell
Baylor Jefferson Richmond
Carter, K. Kenney Tucker
Dorsey LaBruzzo
Total–11
Now as far as Republicans v. Democrats in Louisiana.
Because of our open primary system, it is tough to tell who is really who. We have a lot of RINO’s and DINO’s in this state.
Sometimes people put on the best label for their particular neck of the woods.
In general, we get more support from the R’s than the D’s. But we have some D’s that are being strongly supportive.
Nick:
Thanks for sharing that information.
Your last post should “put to rest†any claims that Republicans are less supportive than Democrats.
Like they say down there … “whoop there it isâ€
Kevin Merck