What’s best for kids at issue for dads – The Boston Globe
February 28, 2008 | Posted by ANCPR Amazing, people opposed the presumption of shared parenting argue that it is wrong to limit the judges’ discretion by requiring them to state their reasons for not granting shared parenting (joint custody). They know that having to go on record would expose the bias. When you are dealing with something that is and should always be a fundamental right (the right to control the nature of your relationship with your own child), you don’t need research and studies. That is the nature of “fundamental parental right”. If large numbers of parents misuse that fundamental right, then use simple assault, neglect, or other criminal sanctions to deal with it, not strip everyone of their fundamental rights.
What’s best for kids at issue for dads
THE GLOBE got it wrong on the “shared parenting” bill (“A fair role for fathers,” Editorial, Feb. 23). You cite law professor Charles Kindregan, who should know better, writing that he “argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis.” The bill would not take any discretion away from judges, as you noted three paragraphs earlier. Rather, it would require judges to state the reasons for their rulings in the event that one parent got sole custody.
Kindregan says, “You don’t need a presumption when you have facts.” Which should be true, but the experience of so many fathers in family court is that judges ignore facts and rule based on their own prejudices about mothers and fathers.
Lawyer Fern Frolin says, “We trust the discretion of judges.” The bill would never have been filed if judicial discretion was working. It is not, and data from case after case support this.
You call for research and pilot studies. The research has been done. Children do better with both parents actively involved in their lives. That is our goal: not father’s rights, but the best lives for our children.
PAUL SAWYER, Westford
IN A perfect world, where judges could know everything accurately and quickly, simply leaving it for them to decide would be appropriate. The Massachusetts court system is not that world. It is encumbered and overscheduled, so divorce cases are often prolonged and acrimonious, with incomplete and biased information presented. Quick judicial decisions must be made at the beginning, and, without the presumption of joint custody, these often separate the father from the children and begin a destructive process that could have been avoided.
Your editorial presents opinions that seem fair, calling for more research and for trusting judges. However, it makes no reasonable argument for not passing the bill currently in the Legislature. In the absence of domestic violence, why shouldn’t the presumption be joint custody? This presumption may change the course of many divorces – albeit with less income for adversarial lawyers – and would be better for our children as they grow up and eventually become parents themselves.
DONALD R. MILLER, Boston
Categories: Best Interest, Courts and Legislatures, Custody, NCP Fathers | 
Tags: | 
2 Comments »
I have to say that my boyfriend has been fighting for sole legal and physical custody of his children that he has had for the last 22 – 24 months.
His case is being handled out of the Cambridge , Ma Probate court. It is pretty bad when not once but twice DSS has called to request him to get his kids from their mother or they would go into DSS custody.
It has been documented by Doctors, DSS, and school teachers that the children are flourishing in his care. The courts have told the mother that she must abided by certain things or must complete certain tasks. The sad thing is for a mother who supposedly wants her children back she has not completed a single thing the court has ordered her to do, yet they keep giving her chance after chance.
She has learned to play the system, I just think that the courts are bias when it comes to gin=ving father’s custody of their children. But isn’t funny that if a father doesn’t pay support they are either locking them up or garnishing their paycheck.
What do you do in a case like this???????
I agree! My fiancee was the sole center of his little girls world from birth until almost a year and a half. The mother went back to work after 3 weeks and made no effort to connect with her child. At a year and a half she got caught cheating and took off with their baby.
Up until just late last year, he has been required to pay an obsence amoutn in child support and court ordered to only see his daughter every other weekend, however because of mom’s party lifestyle he had their daugther on the upwards of 22 days a month, but she still received a check every 2 weeks.
Just recently mom decided to become serious with a man she works with after further sleeping with 5 of my fiancee’s friends. She has restricted and removed all time that my finacee has had with his daughter and we have been forced to take her back to court where she will not budge on any additional time and wants more child support and her court costs paid.
She has changed the childs daycare w/out his consent, moved to Framingham (in with the boyfriend), refuses to allow my finacee Thursdays and Fridays with his daughter when he has those days off work and would prefer that their daughter is in daycare with a 3rd party. And the most ironic part about the whole thing? They share joint legal custody but she makes all decisions on her own w/out his consent!
What gives? Why does the system favor mother’s and gives nothing to father’s? All he wants to do is love his little girl.
We filed in January and now have to wait until October to go to trial, just ridiculous!