You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
This bill, which has far more to do with reducing child support than it does with fostering parental relations, is a disaster. It's rationale is that children are to be treated as chattel to be equally divided between the separating adults.
Many in the legal community have reached out to Gail Rosenblum to explain the problems with the legislation she is supporting; it is clear from this artical that she has committed to being a "men's rights" partisan.
This bill totally ignores the fact that parenting time schedules need to be based on the individual needs of each child. A one size fits all bill does not serve the best interests of the children of Minnesota. This has been pointed out to Ms. Rosenbaum by many in the legal and mental health community, as well as to our elected officals. Why they continue to ignore the facts and listen to people who are primarily interested in reducing their child support obligation is inexplicable. Further, to say that the current best interest of the child standard ignores the "rights" of parents,primarily fathers, is simply a false statement. Our courts do an excellent job of looking at the needs of each child and implementing a parenting time schedule that meets those needs. Children are not possessions to be divided in a divorce.
This bill is about kids having close relationships with both parents, period. No parent should have to fight for the right to see the kids they've always been there for. Starting with a presumption of joint custody is the best place to start and be adjusted from there not the other way around. I've been involved on both sides of the issue. My child does have 50/50 parenting time but because I agreed to that, not because the court would have given that on it's own. And I have a happy healthy kid who is close to both parents. On the other hand I see active, involved fathers try to get more time with the kids...it is NOT about CS as the main issue.
Sarah, In your particular case it may not have been about money; but in most cases that is precisely what it is about. I am aware of hundreds of cases where the custodial parent (almost always the mother) begged the other parent to be more involved in the life of the kids. The father was not interested in the extra time unless it was accompanied by a reduction of child support.
Strode and Kathy, you simply are out of touch, and uninformed. This bill is absolutely not a "one size fits all" bill. In fact, the law, as it stands today, is in fact a "one size fits all" law. Only if favors women, and in the case of single fathers, if gives women 100% custody until a father pays to go to court fight for his rights, and his child's rights to see him. In case you missed it, it is against the constitution to create a law that treats people different based on gender.
Our custody law is based on money for mothers and lawyers, and has absolutely nothing to do with what is best for the children. The vast majority of studies say you are wrong.....So please, explain why you think bankrupting a male to give money to a child he gets to see 8 days a month is the "correct" thing to do. Please do not bring the proven wrong argument of stabiltiy of one home for a child.
This bill is based on the idea that children will have parents continue to be in their lives following divorce or separation. Current law encourages a winner-take-all situation where one parent, by being difficult, can trigger costly custody studies and high legal costs to pretty much guarantee getting the children and the child support. As mothers move toward getting the primary job in the family and start losing custody as fathers have over the past 50 years, there will be a change to a shared presumption. This will happen because society would never accept for moms, what is now happening to dads.
"strode - The father was not interested in the extra time unless it was accompanied by a reduction of child support." -- Not that that is the idea for the father's in most cases that I'm aware of, but exactly why should someone who has the child half the time have to pay child support anyway? I know of too many instances of abuse, woman using child support given by the dad for things not related to the child. Child support is what shoudl be reformed. It costs X to raise a child. Each party should contribute half to that, if one wants to give more than that, give their kid more "stuff" that's up to them but just because someone only makes $10K a year doesn't mean they shouldn't be supporting their child by getting another job or two and just because someone pays $100K a year doesn't mean they should give that much more to the kid that then goes to paying for who knows what that the woman is wasting it on. I've seen int from both the woman and man's point of view and the system sucks.
Rtown--The language of your own posting inadvertantly confirms the concerns expressed by Kathy and myself ("bankrupting a male to give money to a child he gets to see 8 days a month..."). Would you be ok paying the same amount of child support if you got to see the child 15 days a month?
Eman makes a more interesting argument, noting that ("as mothers move towards getting the prmary job in the family" they will start losing custody) Indeed, the social assumptions governing the award to custody at present are that women not men give birth to children, that women earn less then men, especially if they are caring for children, and that single mothers and
their children are the most impoverished segment of our society. To the extent that these underlying assumptions become untrue changes will be made in the granting of custody. (note that I said "granting" of custody, not "award"--custody of a child is a responsibility-not a property right). One other thing, men have not been loosing custody for 50 years, it is more like 150 years; prior to the 1970s they didn't fight about it because child support was minimal
EVERY VERSION OF THE SHARED PARENTING BILL INCREASES SUPPORT TO CHILDREN. Every bill increases direct support to children! More time with both parents, more support to children! A 40% bill (or 35%) reduces the support required from the majority parent. So women should love these bills if money is their concern.
Do you know anyone who has a poor relationship with a parent? maybe you? or a good friend? Have you understood how parenting time is a factor? Do children have rights to good relationships with both parents? Do you support equal rights for children, men and women? or me first rights?
Inequality increases conflict and court cases. $100 Billion dollars a year for court workers is a crime against children!
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks