'Torn' Dayton vetoes child-custody bill

  • Article by: JENNIFER BROOKS , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 24, 2012 - 9:36 PM

He said he was swayed by the argument that the revised visitation formula wouldn't allow for special circumstances.

  • 60
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
cdjohnsoMay. 24, 12 9:10 PM

Kids are the losers by this pocket veto. I don’t care if your politics are red or blue, your orientation straight or gay or your skin color black, brown or white, two parents are better than one. Minnesota’s child custody system creates just the opposite, a 1-parent system, with the second parent (typically dad) forced to be a “Disney Dad”, scrambling to use entertainment to create relevance with their child during the sliver of time they have available. Certainly, this a type of “quality time”, but they have minimal chance for other types of quality time dealing with matters such as establishing moral values, working with homework, meeting with teachers, providing tools to guide their child toward adulthood etc. A multitude of parties share in this shameful veto. Groups and individuals who lobbied against HF322 did so selfishly…because they didn’t have the best interest of kids at heart. And the Twin Cities’ major media share this shame, because they basically ignored this legislation that impacts the lives of thousands of Minnesota kids. My 21 years of journalism shuddered when I read legislative recaps, and found no mention of this critical legislation. You dropped the ball, major medias (apology to Gail Rosenblum), because your attention would likely have caused a different outcome. And Gov. Dayton shares shame, for pocket veto-ing this bill that affects so many kids. When HF 322 resoundingly passed the House and Senate in the wee hours after the Stadium vote, I was ebullient. The only step left was the governor’s signature, and I felt his compassion would make this an obvious and easy signature. Obviously I was wrong. (For the record, my politics leans left, and I unabashedly voted for Dayton. And I have never been involved in a custody battle. HF 322 was simply the right thing for kids.) What a shame to squander this opportunity to help kids.

40
3
DufferHMay. 24, 12 9:51 PM

In stories such as this, it would be helpful to tell the reader how the Legislature had voted on the bill. Was this a partisan issue or not?

19
5
humane4kidsMay. 24, 1210:18 PM

The headline is completely false (wouldn't allow for special circumstances) - Gov. didn't write that and it's completely false besides. Every judge considers every case! including the few with special circumstances. Please fire Jennifer Brooks for deceiving the people again. The Gov. should be torn in his heart for sacrificing children's needs for the financial self-interests of court organizations that put our precious children in the middle to steal $100 Billion dollars a year.

22
3
humane4kidsMay. 24, 1210:21 PM

The article forgot? to mention that MN Senate voted in favor 71%. MN House voted in favor 67% with bi-partisan support and authors. These are VETO OVER-RIDE votes if in session. But Sen. Warren Limmer (and Sen. Scott Newman) delayed the bill for weeks and gutted it in the Senate Judiciary committee and the final bill was voted on in the last minutes of the session. Weeks earlier on April 18, the House voted 60% (80-53) in favor of a minimum 45.1% parenting bill with wording to prevent false allegations. These facts of overwhelming veto over-ride support by the legislature (and for a much bigger House bill) show that Gov. Dayton's actions are very much against the people and for the "self-interests" and "financials" of court-related organizations that pressured him.

21
5
humane4kidsMay. 24, 1210:35 PM

The sub-headline is completely false. It's one of the biggest lies that the opponents use. Apparently the Gov. was influenced by that lie, but Gov. never wrote that! -- every judge reviews every case -- including the few with special circumstances. Read the Gov. letter at "Dayton issues pocket veto of child custody bill". Shame on you writer Jennifer Brooks for deceiving the people.

17
2
humane4kidsMay. 24, 1210:42 PM

The sub-headline(wouldn't allow for special circumstances) is completely false. It's one of the biggest lies that the opponents use. It would be a tragedy if the Gov. was influenced by that lie, but Gov. never wrote that! -- every judge reviews every case. Read the Gov. letter at THE OTHER ARTICLE "Dayton issues pocket veto of child custody bill". Shame on you writer Jennifer Brooks for deceiving the people.

11
2
humane4kidsMay. 24, 1210:45 PM

Gov. should be 'torn' in his heart for 'sacrificing' the needs of children to have more time with both parents. He favored the financial self-interests of the court organizations that put our most precious children in best interest battles over which parent is more important. Neither parent is more important to children.

14
4
gambrinusMay. 24, 1210:46 PM

As a paternal grandparent, I am dismayed by Governor Dayton's decision to minimize the role of fathers in their children's lives. Our grandson has never been allowed to visit us because our son's 'visitation' hours with his son are too limited to drive here and back and spend more than an hour. Governor Dayton has not proven to be family friendly. Lawyer friendly yes; child friendly no. He had months to weigh into this and now he pretends he had difficulty making up his mind at the last minute. Maybe next year, he says.

20
4
humane4kidsMay. 24, 1211:07 PM

Most of the comments are at the OTHER VERSION of THIS ARTICLE "Dayton issues pocket veto of child custody bill".

8
2
shootzMay. 25, 12 6:16 AM

This is a terrible state when if comes to custody or child support. It's financially in the females best interest to not work things out. the financial burden on the male who would benefit by lower child support and more visitation.

21
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT