|
The Michigan
House Committee on Family and Children Services will soon
consider a family law bill which will amend the Child Custody
Act of 1970 to protect the loving bonds children of divorce
share with both parents. Sadly, today Michigan family courts
often allow these bonds to be needlessly damaged or destroyed.
HB 5267 is
primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has
been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree
on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order
joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that
one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for
his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a
shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially
equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is
difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there
are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in
parenting their children.
While the
Michigan State Bar’s Family Law Section, the Michigan National
Organization for Women, Domestic Violence Escape, Inc., and
others have come out against the bill, joint custody is endorsed
by a growing consensus of mental health and family law
professionals, and research establishes that joint custody is
what’s best for kids.
According to
psychologist Robert Bauserman's meta-analysis of 33 studies of
children of divorce, which was published in the American
Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology,
children in shared custody settings had fewer behavior and
emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations,
and better school performance than children in sole custody
arrangements.
A Harvard
University study of 517 families conducted across a
four-and-a-half year period measured depression, deviance,
school effort, and school grades in children ranging in age from
10 to 18. The researchers found that the children in joint
custody settings fared better on these indices than those in
sole custody.
NOW claims
that HB 5267 "places the interests of parents over the child’s
interests.” Yet when researchers have examined children of
divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce,
they’ve found that most prefer joint custody and shared
parenting.
For
example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the
Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of
divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint
physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite
the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important
factor.
When Arizona State University psychology professor William
Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had
experienced their parents’ divorces while they were children, he
found that over two-thirds believed that “living equal amounts
of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children."
His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.
Under
current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors
delineated in Michigan’s Best Interest of the Child Test. Both
the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is
effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors
fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children’s
relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan
Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time
schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with
their noncustodial parents.
Moreover,
the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective
and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for
joint custody without stating its reasons on the record.
Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will “further impoverish
children of separated or divorced parents” because in Michigan,
as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents
spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are
calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are
also unwarranted.
Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates
of child support compliance. This isn’t surprising, since
parents who are permitted little role in their children’s lives
have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under
the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage
expensive court battles in order to protect their time and
relationships with their children. These parents end up
supporting lawyers instead of kids.
While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put
their pocketbooks above their children’s best interests, they
ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50%
physical time with his children simply to lower his child
support obligation, doesn’t it also hold that a mother may seek
85% physical time in order to increase it?
Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will
put abused women in harm’s way. According to DOVE, HB 5267
“sends a clear message to battered women and children that the
'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and
wellbeing.” Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for
joint custody—battered mothers should and would receive sole
custody.
Unfortunately NOW, DOVE and other misguided women’s advocates
seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces—ones
where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces
involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority
of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents
often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will
ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love
the most pushed to the margins of their lives.
This is an expanded version of an article
which first appeared in the Lansing State Journal
(5/28/06).
Mike
McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and
Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization.
Their
website
is
www.acfc.org.
Glenn
Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's
largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at
www.GlennSacks.com or
via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
|
