The following is an article by Fathers & Families Board Member, Robert Franklin, Esq.:
Massachusetts HB 1400 will be voted on in committee soon, perhaps as early as July 13th. It would establish a presumption of equally shared parenting in case of divorce or separation. If a judge deviated from an equally shared arrangement, he/she would have to write an opinion detailing the reasons for ordering unequal parenting. This article is a pretty balanced view of the subject on the part of a paper that’s on record as opposing the bill (Boston Globe, 7/5/10). Full disclosure: the article quotes Dr. Ned Holstein who is a board member of Fathers & Families as am I.
The piece is not the fathers want custody, so let’s find a way to trash fathers type of article we’ve become accustomed to. On the contrary, the father around whom the writer constructs his piece is an upstanding man, a police officer who works two jobs and has never engaged in domestic violence. He strongly desires an equal role in caring for his new son, but, despite his motivation and qualifications, the court said “no”. So readers are meant to sympathize with him and, by extension, dads generally.
Not only that, but the piece adds a vital bit of information to the debate in Massachusetts, one that’s new to me. It cites a 1993 study of 501 custody decisions in Worcester County that found that mothers were awarded sole physical custody in 83.2% of cases. Dads got sole custody in 8.8% of cases and joint physical custody was awarded in 8% of cases.
Of course that’s not a recent study, but consider this: the United States Census Bureau statistics show that nationwide, in 1993, 83.9% of custodial parents were mothers. By 2005, that figure was 83.8%. So in 1993, when the Worcester County study was done, awards of physical custody almost exactly tracked those in the country at large. And the Census Bureau’s data show that patterns of custody awards haven’t changed a bit since 1993. That at the very least suggests that Massachusetts still awards sole physical custody to mothers about 83% of the time. Time passes, but fathers access to their children never seems to improve.
And that’s the short answer to the people quoted in the article who say that child custody should be decided on an individualized basis. Now, of course there’s nothing in HB 1400 that removes a judge’s power to do exactly that. In cases in which one parent is violent or unfit to parent, judges can deviate from the equally-shared presumption. But the simple, clear fact is that, without the presumption, children end up with at best a tenuous relationship with one parent. Eighty-three percent of the time, that parent is the dad.
That brings us back to where we so often find ourselves when child custody law is the topic. Opponents of shared custody never answer the most obvious of questions, what’s so good about the current system? They oppose change. They oppose equally shared parenting, but uniformly fail to propose an alternative. That can only mean they’re happy with the status quo.
That in turn must mean they think that children losing a parent after divorce is acceptable in some way, because much social science and countless individual case histories tell us that is exactly what happens. Supporting the status quo can only mean that they think that courts failure to enforce the visitation rights of non-custodial parents doesn’t need to change. So what’s so good about a situation in which millions of children effectively don’t have a father? That very situation – what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called pathological in 1967 – has been brought about in no small part by family law and family courts.
It’s no wonder the opponents of shared parenting don’t tell us what’s so good about the current system. They’d be hooted down in derision if they tried. So they stick to their talking points hoping no one will notice that they’re defending the indefensible.
Not uncommonly, that means making up facts. Nancy Allen Scannell of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children informed us that,the process already prefers joint physical custody.
Oh, I see. It prefers it, but somehow doesn’t get around to actually ordering it in more than 8% of cases. And that of course is precisely the point: the process has for many decades systematically cuts dads out of the lives of children, and so must change.
For more information please visit nationalparentsorganization.org and in particular this article
3 users commented in " MA Shared Parenting Bill May Be Up for Vote Soon "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI have to ask, What is a good father? A man that works two jobs and is an upstanding police officer? That doesn’t say how he was a father to his children. I probably 99% of marriages, the mother gets up in the night to feed and change the baby. The mother usually takes the child to school, doctors…etc…the mother reads, plays and teaches the child. If a father leaves that all to the mother while they are married and then for whatever reason is their marriage/relationship does not work out, the father deserves HALF of the child’s time? I don’t understand. I do understand that good fathers love their children and deserve to see/help raise them, but what trauma will that cause the child when they have to see their father one week and their mother the next when that child basically only knew their mother in the first place? I am speaking of the very young child. Older children will see and know the differences between their relationships with both parents. My number one fear is that judges will not allow past domestic violence/abuse into this shared parenting bill and will continue, as they do today, to leave a vulnerable child with these types of men and I will continue to see murdered children’s faces all over the news and net. We have to always think and do what’s best for the CHILD.
Moms who get along with the father of their children welcome the help and work with the dad to set up a schedule that works for everyone.
The cases that are contested, the moms have very good reasons for not wanting to be under the control of someone they aren’t married to via use of the child.
Women who are divorced or single and forced by court order are basically enslaved and deprived of the rights they should have to make decisions for themselves and their children without any interference of any other people. This should be a fundamental right.
Children are supposed to be human beings – not treated like joint property.
Women need to demand the natural right to raise their children alone, with the MOM’s last name to honor she who gives birth and to raise their offspring, just like happens in nature every day, all the time.
Being subjugated to having a male guardian in the United States makes this country no better than Saudi Arabia.
Women demand freedom from oppression!
I recently went to court and came to agreement for joint custody as a father I found it to be a blessing cause I did not think I had a chance. I want for my son what I have never had a strong bonding relationship.
What is a good father?
I’m not a good father I am an excellent parent second to no other for my son. My x was worried joint/shared custody would get in the way of child support so I agreed to pay the full amount. Not for her but so I could solidify the more important thing a agreement on joint physical custody. Child support can always be modified.
I work my but off for my money but being a parent has come natural it is the one thing in my life that im good at. To take my son away would be a crime. strong bonds are needed between both parents for a child’s sucess.
I would never wanna take my son’s mom out of the picture it would not do him justice.
As a father i did the late nite feedings , the early morning feedings , the play groups, the doctors, the groceries and cooking then went to work for 6pm.
are you to conceided to see that just maybe a father can be an equal parent in the raising of their child ?
Leave A Reply