Sadly every single thing that NOW and other feminists groups are saying in this article about presumptive Joint Custody is true.
Yes, it will turn custody of children into a club to be used against mothers, forcing them to stay in marriages for fear of not being able to leave with their children.
Yes, men are doing this mostly to avoid paying high child support.
Yes, it will ultimately wind up being a joint custody parenting plan on paper ONLY just as it has in California, where they already experienced it. That the least interested parent, which is generally the father (in spite of much propaganda trying to convince us otherwise) will not continue exercising his portion of the parenting plan. So it will have the ultimate result of mothers raising the kids for 80/90% of the time with no child support, since on paper it said the parents are sharing joint physical custody.
All of this is true.
What NOW fails to acknowledge however is the role feminists have played in family courts across the nation in making this the lesser of many many evils that mothers have to accept today. Because the alternative for mothers is to have to risk going into a court system, overrun with greedy men and gender neutralized feminists, where it is considered progressive and trendy to give a father custody today.
So mothers risk a heck of a LOT more going into court on these issues then we do accepting a faux Joint Custody plan.
It should be quite obvious to any thinking person today, looking at the numbers of fathers that have become custodial over the last decade or so, that going to court to decide custody has favored men. As opposed to the defacto custody to mother approach that has existed since life first crawled out of the primal ooze. Yet feminist organizations continue to advocate for women to not accept the so-called ‘cookie cutter’ approach of presumptive Joint Custody and for us to continue letting a Judge decide these issues for us on a case-by-case basis.
Hello feminists, but millions of mothers over the last decade or so have lost custody of their children by following your advice.
Not to mention that recently studies have shown us that having female Judges in courts has proven WORSE for women in sentencing for both lesser as well as major crimes. So carrying the implication of that study through to it’s logical conclusion shows us that: a) it is not only bad for women if men are acting as Judges; but b) it is also bad for us if other women are Judges as well.
Thus, there is nothing good for women in allowing ourselves to be forced into the court system, nothing.
So NOW and other feminist groups needs to shut the hell up and quit trying to shoot down every proposal that is put forth to keep mothers out of court.
As these very feminists are the ‘slackers’ who used other women to propel themselves into educational opportunities in law schools and the like, with the subsequent cushy jobs throughout our system that resulted for them from this. Then they failed to come through for their sisters when they were needed during this whole custody war situation over the last decade or so.
That’s the bottom line here.
These feminists failed mothers when they were in crisis in this society and since most women become mothers, this means feminism ultimately failed women.
Fathers demand joint custody
Thursday, September 28, 2006
By Sharon Emery
LANSING -- Michigan fathers who believe they've been worked over by the courts on child custody are among backers of a bill that would mandate joint physical custody unless there is convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to hold up his end of the bargain.
Currently the starting point for determining custody is the child's best interest.
But some fathers say that puts them at a disadvantage because family courts are biased toward women and, as child-bearers, women usually already have the child under their care.
"So Dad has the burden of having to fight for any kind of parenting time or custody," said William Reisdorf, an attorney from Troy and a member of Dads of Michigan, a fathers' rights group.
He was among about 100 people, mostly men, rallying at the Capitol Wednesday to support HB 5267, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton. Mortimer, who as a child saw her father only every other Sunday after her parents divorced, says she's been promised a public hearing on the bill this fall.
But advocates for women say mandating joint custody would put the father's interests above the child's and turn custody proceedings into mud-slinging affairs. Women might avoid divorce, even when the family is in a desperate situation.
"We have to make sure families are not pressured into joint custody," said Kathy Hagenian, of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, who noted that batterers often use children to manipulate their partners in custody disputes.
"Joint custody could be used to further traumatize the child," she said, and make threats and manipulation "much more effective."
Other opponents of the bill include the Family Law Section of the State Bar and the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women. They pointed to California, which in 1994 repealed its mandatory joint custody law, and New York, which has failed to move a similar bill, as evidence of widespread misgivings about the move.
The legislation would affect only those cases where custody is disputed, about 5 percent of the cases, according to Kent Weichman, of the Family Law Section of the State Bar. Since 1980 Michigan judges have been required to consider joint custody when a parent requests it.
"Under this bill, one parent would have to be found unfit by the courts in order to have any kind of custody arrangement other than 50-50," Weichman said.
Ultimately, "the bill prohibits the court from considering what's best for children ... by imposing one solution on all families."
Supporters of the legislation, including Fathers-4-Justice, Moms of Michigan and the Children's Rights Council, argued in a statement that Michigan families are "being micromanaged by the family court system with disastrous consequences to our children, families and the state economy."
They say the bill would result in a presumption of joint custody for fit parents, adding that equal parenting is a civil rights issue "whose time has come."
Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.
Some see a financial motive in mandating 50-50 custody, noting that one parent, often the mother, usually ends up providing most of the care even when the court specifies otherwise.
"This will eliminate child support -- there won't be any support orders," said Renee Beeker, president of the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women.