1
   

Joint Custody

 
 
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 06:23 pm
Divorced Mich. fathers sue for equity in child custody

Quote:
Class-action lawsuit seeks to make joint custody the first option judges consider

How custody is decided

*Judges decide custody matters. The friend of the court and domestic relations referees can only make recommendations for orders to judges.

* By law, judges must make decisions based on the best interests of the child.

* If parents disagree with the judge's decisions, they may appeal to a higher court. Appeals in domestic relations cases go to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

* Parents may ask the judge to review a recent custody decision.

* During many custody hearings, judges speak to the children about their preference. Judges will decide who will be present when they interview children. While a record is made of the interview, judges do not have to tell the parents or their attorneys what the child's preference was, only that it was considered.

* The child's preference is only one consideration in the case.

Source: State Court Administrative Office, Friend of the Court Bureau


TROY - Michigan fathers seeking to make joint custody the norm in divorce cases are suing the state in a class-action lawsuit they hope will stop the courts from marginalizing their role in their children's lives.

The suit claims the state's family courts have violated fathers' civil rights by awarding mothers custody and reducing them to visitors. The suit was filed when noncustodial parents in 43 other states filed similar suits, and when fathers are seeking similar parental equity in Europe and Canada.

"What I wanted was for my kids to have as normal of a life as possible," said Troy resident Michael Ross, the primary litigant, whose court order grants him parenting time with his three children every other weekend and a few hours during the week.

"This lawsuit is not about me but what is best for them: substantial time with their mother and substantial time with their dad."

The lawsuit is the latest attempt by Michigan's noncustodial parents, who are overwhelmingly fathers, to force courts to presume that joint custody is in a child's best interest at the outset of a divorce. Judges still would have the authority to decide what's best for the child, but it would reduce some of their discretion. Currently, judges base their decision on what they consider to be best for the children, but fathers argue that those decisions are rooted in cultural stereotypes that mothers are better parents.

Physical custody has long been disproportionately awarded to mothers. Out of the state's 19,108 divorce cases involving children in 2002, mothers were given physical custody in 64 percent of the cases and fathers in 10 percent, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health. Joint custody was awarded in 23 percent.

Additionally, for couples who never marry, Michigan law grants custody to mothers, bolstering fathers' argument that the system is unfair.

Experts say the reason mothers are more often awarded custody of children is because of the cultural history of women being the primary caretakers, said Leighton Stamps, a University of New Orleans professor who has studied the decision-making of judges in child custody cases.

"A lot of the judges' attitudes depend on their age," Stamps said. "Older judges tend to be more traditional. Younger judges tend to be more egalitarian."

However, custody laws like Michigan's, which rest on the best interest of the child, give judges a lot of latitude, Stamps added.

"A judge can pretty much pick out any aspect of the family situation in making these rulings," Stamps said.

Fathers have lobbied the Michigan Legislature twice in the past eight years and have launched a petition drive to get equal parenting rights, efforts that have been largely unsuccessful.

However, some observers argue that joint custody is not a viable option in many cases because there are some fathers unable to accommodate the arrangement either because of their job or because they live in another state.

There are other fathers, too, who don't want to be a part of their children's life. And there are situations when the mother and father just can't get along.

"You can't force a joint custody situation on two people who are not capable of getting along, because what will happen to the child?" said Debbie Kline, executive director of Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support. "It takes a lot more cooperation between the two adults, and many divorcing parents can't get along."

Dads demand equal time

Often the animosity of a divorce fuels disagreement between moms and dads when it comes to the children, especially when they are trying to split parenting time. When parents can't agree, the court steps in and typically defaults to a parenting plan that involves every other weekend and some time during the week.

But fathers say that's not enough time to raise their children.

"Just because a family dissolves doesn't mean that it's no longer a family," said Michael Lane of Farmington Hills, who had monthly visits with his now-adult son.

"It's just a family of a different nature. Both parents have responsibilities toward the children and toward one another."

Though the number of joint custody awards has been slowly increasing, which some observers believe is a sign that times are changing, some fathers say they are not being awarded enough. They also say it doesn't always mean they will have equal time with their kids.

Joint legal custody allows parents to play equal roles in making decisions for their child's upbringing such as education, religion and health care. But for some fathers, it doesn't always mean equal time to raise the child.

"It's just unbearable," said Daniel Gee of Novi, who has custody of his 16-year-old son but not his 12-year-old son, whom he sees every other weekend. "This stuff is emotionally devastating, and you go to the courts and they are callous. It's an unacceptable way to treat a parent."

Father's role is vital

Psychologists say children who don't spend enough time with their fathers can develop emotional problems such as low self-esteem, depression and feelings of abandonment. Fatherless children are more likely to act out at school, develop truancy problems and develop unhealthy perceptions about relationships, said Michael Brooks, a Kalamazoo psychologist.

"Both parents bring unique characteristics and aspects to parenting the children," said Brooks, who is a member of the state's Friend of the Court Advisory Board. "But it's difficult to be a parent two days out of 15."

Brooks said a court-ordered parenting plan that only includes every other weekend and a few nights a week could be construed as a situation that creates a fatherless child. This is why he supports the movement that courts should initially presume joint custody for divorcing couples, unless one of them is shown to be unfit.

John Mills, chairman of the family law section of the Michigan State Bar, said mandating a presumption of joint custody would take away the discretion of judges, who are considering each individual case.

"They make the decision on what is best for the children," said Mills, who opposes presumed joint legal custody.

Lawsuit marks new approach

The move for equal parenting time has been under way for some time. In 1996 and 2001, fathers' rights groups got parity bills introduced into the state Legislature, but neither went very far.

Earlier this year, Dads of Michigan sponsored a petition drive to get the issue onto the ballot, but the group couldn't get enough signatures. The class-action lawsuit, filed last month, is attempting to seek change through another avenue that so far has not been explored.

Attorney General Mike Cox, who has earned a reputation for cracking down on parents who don't pay child support, is seeking to dismiss Ross' case on grounds that the state can't be sued in federal court, where the case was filed.

Since the suit claims Michigan has broken laws by violating its citizens' rights, the state is not immune from being sued, said Torm Howse, president of Indiana Civil Rights Council, which is coordinating the lawsuits in all the states, including Michigan.

"This is not about trying to help abusive parents," Howse said. "It's about restoring the equal right of every fit and equal parent to joint or shared parenting."

Ross, the Troy father who filed the lawsuit, says it goes beyond that.

"This," Ross said, "is about a force that is taking place in our culture that is very bad for our society overall."


The law must be gender neutral. Every parent (father and mother) has a fundamental right to have a meaningful relationship with his/her child. Every child has a fundamental right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Is it possible for a noncustodial parent and the child to develop a meaningful relationship on a visitation schedule that permits visits every other weekend, every other major holiday, and 2 weeks in the summer?

Will this class action lawsuit resolve the problem? Will "joint custody" solve the problem or will it create instability for a child who is constantly bounced between parents?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,534 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 06:53 pm
Personally, if a judge insisted that I had to spend 3 1/2 days in one house and then 3 1/2 days in another house, I'd feel constantly uprooted--and I'm an adult used to coping with inconvenience.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 06:59 pm
I agree with Noddy. That would have driven me nuts going back and forth and I think that's why judges rule as they do. I don't think it's fair to the child to have to live 2 lives with 2 sets of rules. Obviously mom and dad aren't going to raise the child exactly the same, so I think it would confuse a child to no end to have to live like this.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 07:02 pm
living out of a suitcase
No child should be forced to live out of a suitcase, e.g., one week at mom's house--one week at dad's house. (Not to mention that both parents will likely have different house rules for the children to follow.) Children need continuity and stability.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 07:03 pm
I forgot to add that my ex and I had joint custody at one time and my son did not like it at all.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 07:05 pm
Re: living out of a suitcase
Debra_Law wrote:
No child should be forced to live out of a suitcase, e.g., one week at mom's house--one week at dad's house. (Not to mention that both parents will likely have different house rules for the children to follow.) Children need continuity and stability.


I agree. It's very stressful for the child/children.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 08:11 pm
I suppose it all depends on how the exes get along.

We have good friends who went through this. The husband had joint custody of his two sons, and he and his new wife lived within a mile of his ex and her new husband. The boys had nice bedrooms, clothing and personal possessions at both places. They spent Monday & Tuesday nights at Mom's, then got off the school bus at Dad's house on Wednesday where they stayed Thursday and Friday nights. They alternated weekends, but not on a strict schedule...it depended on what they all had scheduled. Both boys did well academically (at a demanding private school) and socially, and they are responsible adults now (in their late 20s) and close to both sets of parents.

This wouldn't have worked for many, but since all the adults were determined to get along well, they made it work.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 08:17 pm
My parents really tried, but it just didn't work. I bounced weekly for a while, it was absolutely awful. My mom recognized this, to her eternal credit, and it became I spent the school year with my dad (who kept the house and was much closer to my school) and the summers with her, with frequent visits with the parent who did not have custody at that moment.

Divorce is just plain horrible. <shudder>
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 08:55 pm
The First Mr. Noddy and I had two sons. After the divorce, I stayed in PA and he moved to NJ. Every other weekend the boys caught the bus after school on Friday for Port Authority in NYC and were picked up by their father. I met the return bus on Sunday evening.

They told me that they liked the bus ride because it kept a distance between their homes.

A book I read called this sort of time "transition time".

So often with joint custody both parents preen themselves about being Civilized and Modern and Putting The Children First. They aren't thinking about math books and gym shorts and riding bikes after school. They are thinking about their own images rather than the children's happiness.

I have heard of more successful joint custody arrangements where the children keep the family home and the parents take turns moving in and out for 3 1/2 days. This seems fairer to me.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 08:57 pm
Book mark.
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:18 pm
Your supposed to love your kid's more than you hate each other. My X and I have joint custody with me being the primary (he pays child support). We are so fortunate that we are able to get along, (this took work) our daughters needs and school work schedule have changed from year to year, if I had to wait for the courts to make a decision on where she should sleep and when, our lives would be in a constant state of limbo.

I'm also fortunate that we have lived no more than 6 miles from each other for the last 7 years, this has made access for visitation a no brainer.
Our schedule lately has been friday and saturday with him and sporadically the rest of the time. If he wants my daughter on the spur of the moment because there is an impromtu family gathering on his side I won't think twice about letting her go if she wants to, and she alway's does because she has a solid relationship with all of his family. She is happy, well adjusted, has high grades and more friends than I can keep track of.

I have every reason in the world to never speak to my X again, but if I acted like that my daughter would suffer.

Love your kid's more than you hate each other.
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:22 pm
Noddy24 wrote:

I have heard of more successful joint custody arrangements where the children keep the family home and the parents take turns moving in and out for 3 1/2 days. This seems fairer to me.


I just met a couple that does that, what a great idea. It works for them.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:27 pm
Thinking.....
0 Replies
 
My2Girls1208
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 04:55 pm
I am a divorcing dad who is experiencing first hand the ill effects of the Family Court system... I am not (overly) bitter but am just looking for equal justice for both parents... unfortunately, in times like these oftentimes one of the adults holds a bitter grudge and uses the children as pawns in the divorce... the classic "ME" syndrome with no thoughts about the best interest of the children. Even more sickening than that is the courts allow it and will not recommend counseling for the parent acting out. They still feel that it is in the best interest to leave the kids with the female. Is that right? The Rick Lohstroh case will be interesting as it unfolds....
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 06:13 pm
Thank you Debra for bringing this subject to light at this most perfect time.

I have a very dear friend who is in a similar situation as My2Girls. My friend does not want to take his son away from his mother permanently, but simply wants to share joint custody with him as the primary custodian and have his son live with him and visit his mother instead of the way the temporary orders currently have it the other way around.

There are a LOT of reasons that he feels this would be in the best interest of his son, but his soon to be ex only sees it as "winning or losing" for herself instead of taking their son's best interest into account.

The wife was diagnosed years and years ago as bi-polar and schizophrenic. Twice she has attempted suicide and she spends most of her days in bed with one physical ailment or another. Out of the first quarter of school this year, my friend found out at his son's parent teacher conference that his son was late for school 15 days and was totally absent for 8. That's 23 days out of 45. And each time was when the son was in the mothers care.. She does not cook for her son, but tells him (he just turned 11) to either get something himself or go to one of his aunts for dinner. She sneds all of her sons dirty laundry with him on the weekends he sees his dad so his dad will get it done. She goes to bed without ever checking to see if her son has any homework to do or even making sure that he gets to bed. She falls asleep and lets him decide his own bedtime. Of course any 11 year old, playing a video game will easily lose track of time and who knows when he will actually get to bed. My friend has pictures of the family house that is in a shambles now inside. Days and days of dirty dishes, nothing picked up or cleaned up, garbage cans overflowing. Dads house is immaculate and he cooks and cleans and sews and involves his son in all of it to show him how much fun it can be working together. Then she tops it all off by telling her son what a low life, cheater, lawbreaker, tightwad idiot his father is.

And he's not! He woks his tail off to pay her the nearly 2 grand a month in spousal support and child support and yet she is continually calling him saying she needs more money. She has never worked a day in her life, has no intention of ever working and even told her son, that if he were to go and live with his dad, who would take care of her!!

Every weekend that my friend does have his son, they have to spend it catching up on all of the homework that hadn't gotten done when at moms, doing laundry and trying to find some time to enjoy together.

They were to have their pre-trial divorce/custody meeting at the court this past week and at the meeting her attorney dismissed herself in front of the judge stating that the wife was "irresponsible, irrational and a whiner" and she couldn't deal with her on a professional level.

Back to square one. The judge granted a 4 month continuance with no change to the temporary orders. My friend and his attorney are hoping to start mediation very soon as a way of resolving this as soon as possible. In the meantime, Debra, what is a father to do?

Sorry this was soooo long!
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 06:24 am
Unfortunately my ex was an abusive drunk who never thought twice about drinking and driving with him. I'm glad to hear some good stories here though.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 01:12 pm
I've always liked the plan that keeps the children in the home, and the parents moving. I first read about it nearly 25 years ago. I remember thinking that judge was brilliant.

I've known one family that did this, and it worked out quite well. The children always knew where their stuff was. They were always near school, and their friends and events. Both parents had apartments nearby. It seemed to me that there was less discrepancy between the mother and father's post-divorce living situations than there normally seems to be. Both of them were invested in keeping the house in good condition.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 05:40 pm
That IS interesting, Beth!!!!

That "joint time" thing is set to become the default position here in Oz.

I find it very disturbing for many of the reasons already mentioned.

First, though, I think it behoves us to remember that the great majority of couples find a system that suits everyone, as well as possible, (NOTHING is ever perfect) all by theselves, and without recourse to courts - and these arrangements, in my experience, are very flexible and responsive to people's changing needs. I see kids living with dads, and visiting mums - I see kids having the odd weekend with dads, but also having dinners and special times during the week, and impromptu sleepovers, and having dads come over to take them to school - a friend's ex comes over every night to put the children to bed. Drives her nuts, cos they are still in the very cross stage - but the kids love it, so she acts like she loves it too.

But - for the couples who can't do it - I find these "joint time" things potentially alarming. Often, in my experience, the courts attend to kids more as the property of the parents, over whom they have "property rights" than really looking at the needs of the kids.

For kids suddenly to be made to spend half their time with parent they have often had little time with - and who has not had the nuts and bolts care before - often works really badly.

Of course, some dads are absolutely hands on - and some mums aren't - but I do not know how many bedraggled kids I have seen, who adore their dads, but find his home un-nurturing and distressing - but would NEVER say they prefer to have weekend access only. Some non-hands on parents learn, of course - and it all goes well. I have seen many who don't.

So many kids I see packed off crying to have access with a parent who has violently abused their mum - and who they are terrified of - or worse, who has abused them - but there is no proof. But - he has the right to his kids. Ditto with drug-blitzed mums, who have the "right" to see their kids, whenever they emerge briefly from their haze, and suddenly remember the kids exist, make promises of reform and regular contact, only to disappear breaking hearts again.

Feh.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 01:17 pm
Lady J
Lady J wrote:
Back to square one. The judge granted a 4 month continuance with no change to the temporary orders. My friend and his attorney are hoping to start mediation very soon as a way of resolving this as soon as possible. In the meantime, Debra, what is a father to do?


It sounds like your friend ought to seek full custody (not joint custody) of the child. From what you described, the best interest factors seem to weigh in favor of granting custody to the father instead of the mother. Your friend is represented by an attorney, so hopefully all the evidence of the child's excessive tardiness and absences from school will be presented to the court. A child needs continuity and stability.

Mediation is unlikely to be successful, but its gives the father an opportunity to shine. During the four-month continuance, the father should be getting all his ducks in order and preparing for trial. It sounds like the mother is suffering from depression (sleeping excessively, shirking ordinary household responsibilities). Perhaps the father's attorney ought to motion the court for the mother to undergo a pyschological evaluation to determine her mental fitness to care for a child.
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 01:16 pm
Re: Lady J
Debra_Law wrote:
Lady J wrote:
Back to square one. The judge granted a 4 month continuance with no change to the temporary orders. My friend and his attorney are hoping to start mediation very soon as a way of resolving this as soon as possible. In the meantime, Debra, what is a father to do?


It sounds like your friend ought to seek full custody (not joint custody) of the child. From what you described, the best interest factors seem to weigh in favor of granting custody to the father instead of the mother. Your friend is represented by an attorney, so hopefully all the evidence of the child's excessive tardiness and absences from school will be presented to the court. A child needs continuity and stability.

Mediation is unlikely to be successful, but its gives the father an opportunity to shine. During the four-month continuance, the father should be getting all his ducks in order and preparing for trial. It sounds like the mother is suffering from depression (sleeping excessively, shirking ordinary household responsibilities). Perhaps the father's attorney ought to motion the court for the mother to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine her mental fitness to care for a child.


Thank you, Debra. I appreciate your input very much. My friend does have all of his ducks in a row and was ready to proceed to the full custody hearing when his wife's attorney quit on her and the wife's new attorney asked for a continuance. My friend has no doubts, nor does his attorney about gaining full legal and physical custody, but I also think my friends tender heart did not want to take his wife's only child away from her completely (he's concerned about yet another suicide attempt). hence he was willing to settle for joint, with him having physical custody and her having visitation.

The wife and her attorney both know they will lose if my friends attorney goes after them full bore, so they do have a bargaining chip to some extent in mediation. I don't know exactly how they accomplished this, but my friends attorney actually got the wife to sign a release for all of her medical (including psychologic/psychiatric) records and they are definitely prepared to ask for an independent psychological exam to determine fitness if necessary.

The wife just keeps dragging this on and on. She now has all this "physical ailments" that keep popping up, preventing her from meetings with her own attorney and my friend just wants to get it over and done with. At what point can the courts say enough is enough and draw it to a close in your experience?

Their hopes are at this time, during mediation, that they can go in with everything they have, let the wife know she doesn't stand a chance if it ends up in court and she can either take the conditions of the mediation or face the full onslaught of the court
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Joint Custody
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/12/2024 at 09:36:47