Saturday, April 29, 2006
Copy of Proposed New York State Presumptive Joint Custody Bill
BILL NO A00330
SAME AS Same as Uni. S 291
COSPNSR Galef, McEneny, Ignizio, Casale, O`Mara, Aubertine, Finch, Hooker, Quinn, Ortiz, Mayersohn, Alessi
MLTSPNSR Benjamin, Boyland, Burling, Calhoun, Canestrari, Crouch, Destito, Dia, R, Fitzpatrick, Hooper, Kolb, Koon, Lupardo, Magee, McDonald, McDonough, Miller, Mosiello, Oaks, Perry, Pretlow, Reilich, Reilly, Schroeder, Sweeney, Tonko, Townsend
Amd SS70 & 240, add S240-d, Dom Rel L
Establishes the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child; establishes an order of preference in awarding custody; defines shared parenting and parenting plan.
BILL NO A00330
01/12/2005 referred to judiciary
02/11/2005 reference changed to children and families
01/04/2006 referred to children and families
BILL NUMBER: A330
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to establishing a presumption of shared parenting of minor children in matrimonial proceedings:
PURPOSE: To create a statutory presumption of joint custody for all minor children whose parents are no longer married, so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children`s upbringing.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill sets forth the legislative intent for creating a presumption of joint custody in proceedings where the custody of minor children is at issue. It further states that continuing contact with both parents through shared parenting is in the best interests of minor children.
Section 2 of the bill amends S 70(a) of the Domestic Relations Law to require the court to award custody to both parents in the absence of allegations that shared parenting would be detrimental to the child.The burden of proof that shared parenting would be detrimental is placed upon the parent requesting sole custody.
Section 3 of the bill amends S 240(1) of the Domestic Relations Law to establish an order of preference for the awarding of custody of minor children in the case of divorce. The first preference is for joint custody to be awarded by the court. If the court opts not to award joint custody it must state its reasons for denial. The order of joint custody may be amended by the court if it is shown that it would be in the best interests of the child. The second preference would be toeither parent based on the court`s determination of the best interests of the child. The third preference would be to the person with whom the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment. The final preference would be to another person the court deems suitable.
Section 4 of the bill adds a new S 240(d) to the Domestic Relations Law to create a definition of shared parenting. Under this definition both parents would remain legally responsible and in control of their children so that both parents share in the care and upbringing of their children. It also sets forth requirements of a "parenting plan."
Section 5 of the bill establishes the effective date.
EXISTING LAW: Currently, there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so.
JUSTIFICATION: Whether the parents are married or not, each should be assumed to have equally important responsibilities in child rearing. In families of divorce, as in households where the parents live together, the social attitude concerning the alleged primacy of maternal influence in the lives of children is an unbalanced perspective and is potentially damaging to children. Current psychological studies,including state sponsored projects spanning 38 states, reveal convergent findings that children of all ages have better adjustment after divorce when they have full parenting participation from both parents. Custody decisions that exclude or narrowly limit the participation of either parent tend ultimately to have negativeimpact on children.
According to reports by the National Institute of Mental Health, custody arrangements which effectively remove one parent from a child`s life interferes with the child`s normal development. Although nothing in current law prohibits a court of competent jurisdiction from awarding shared parenting of a child to bothparents, it is rarely done by the courts, or only in instances where it is requested by both parents. Statistics have shown that in more than 95% of divorce or separation cases, the mother was awarded sole custody of the child, with the father limited to rights of visitation.
A shared parenting arrangement would allow the child to enjoy continued contact with both parents and the extended family on each side. Presumptive shared parenting protects and shifts the litigation burden away from the cooperative parent, and fosters a context for mediation to the child`s advantage. Because presumptive shared parenting reduces litigation and re-litigation, it will also reduce the stress inherent in the divorce process. To the extent that policy is driven by conflict reduction, shared parenting is the obvious starting point. Joint physical custody also satisfies the top positive predictor of child support compliance, which is involvement in parenting. Most importantly, it recognizes that children are not property or bargaining chips. It reassures the child that both parents are equal. As this law would assure that neither parent is demoted in the children`s eyes, it affirms to the children what they need to feel, that both parents are equal.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect November first next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law and shall apply to actions and proceedings commenced on and after such date.
Some people had emailed me regarding a copy of this bill, so here it is.
They are still debating it up in Albany as far as I know...
Of course the authors of the bill (obviously from that sad, envious group of people, so jealous of mothers) had to do the obligatory 'drive by shooting' at mothers by coming up with this distortion of the truth in the body of the bill:
"...the social attitude concerning the alleged primacy of maternal influence in the lives of children is an unbalanced perspective and is potentially damaging to children..."
This, of course, is another distortion of the truth from men and gender neutralized feminists.
There is nothing anywhere in the world that would lead sane people to believe that mothers who function, as the best and most natural guardians and caretakers for the young in every species as well as our own, do this due to any "social attitude". Unless lions, and tigers and bears along with other members of the animal kingdom suddenly started showing 'social attitude' in the way they raise their young. Which, believe it or not, mothers are the primary caretakers who raise the young of these species as well, just like human mothers do...and it's been going on that way for millions of years, all without the assistance of a group of self-righteous jackasses up in Albany.
So in fact, there is nothing unbalanced or damaging to children to be in the sole care, custody and control of their mothers.
This is more bullcrap, propaganda and lies from gender neutralized feminists and mens' rights advocates.
In fact, if it were the case that mothers were the most natural guardians and best caretakers of children ONLY because of social attitudes; then believe me, the selfishness of men would have put a stop to this "social attitude" a LONG TIME ago and claimed that for their own as well, along with everything else they have grabbed in the world for themselves. Which is everything btw...
The truth is that women in their role as mothers have been selected for that role by God, evolution, nature, whatever, since humanity first crawled out of the primary mists. It is not something anybody, NOT men, NOT feminists, NOT a family court Judge have given us, as it is not something in their power to give.
Nor, conversely should it be the right of anyone to take away from mothers either.
As I have said before, I do agree that this bill should become law in New York State. Not because I agree with it's premise; however, but because I see it as the lesser of many, many, many evils that could happen to mothers and children if we do NOT agree to it.
It's that simple, the lesser of horrors that could (and regularly are) foisted off upon mothers and their children by gender neutralized feminists and mens' rights advocates.
Thus I support it...