Those of you who know me personally know about the blatant judicial bias and misconduct in my case. If it were just ME, then the problem may not lie in the court but in something that I have done wrong as a mother, as a woman, or as a citizen. A very close friend, a woman I consider my sister although we are not related by blood or marriage, was experiencing some of the same difficulties as me, her situation much worse than mine, and we found others. The stories were almost unbelievable, and if I did not know these people personally, I would have a tendency not to believe that Judges could be so blind.
The stories are not really the issue here. Judges taking action that is far removed from what would be considered "the best interest of the child" sounds like the stuff of Lifetime movies. The problem goes one step beyond Judicial prejudice because mothers (and fathers) who find themselves wronged by the court have little to no recourse. In most cases, the parent struggling and fighting for their children is doing so as a single parent receiving no spousal support, and receiving no child support, or so little in support that it does not even cover the child's milk money for the week. This parent can not afford an attorney, and because this single parent has to support the child mostly on their own, they have to have a job, which likely disqualifies them from Legal Aid. These people are at the mercy of the court system, and once a ruling comes down, it takes an act of God to undo it. Is there a solution? It would seem. Here are my thoughts.
If I were to ever win a lottery, after I took care of my family's needs, I would take my winnings and form a foundation that provides quality legal help to parents fighting for their children in the courts. I would also ensure that I had on staff appellate attorneys who would help parents wronged by the circuit courts. If only I had unlimited means, I would do this.
Bring in a NEW concept when it comes to making decisions regarding children. "The best interest of the child" needs to be completely thrown OUT of the fray. This concept does not work, it is too objective, and it encourages deceit in the court as one parent tries to one up the other in proving that THEY can provide best for the child~ even though many times the issue is not about the child but about winning. This new concept is called the "approximation standard." This basically means that the child is to have consistency in the post divorce situation. If the child spends 80% of their time with their mother, then ordering joint or shared custody, where the child spends one week at moms and one week at dads is NOT in the best interest of the child. The child did not spend half his time with dad before, why now? This is inconsistent and not "in the best interest of the child" if you want to hang on to that concept.
It is argued that because it is standard for the mother to stay home with the child while the father works, that adopting this would result in "nothing more than maternal preference in all cases." The goal is a sense of continuity for the children in the face of major changes in their home life. It is not about who is the better parent, it is about the child's sense of security, and this does not necessarily mean the child is more attached to one parent than the other. The child should continue to have a relationship with both parents so long as that relationship is reciprocated, and so long as the child is loved, not utilized. You do not force your children to go hug Uncle Leo if Uncle Leo makes them uncomfortable, so why should a child who is uncomfortable be forced to go spend 3 solid weeks with dad (or mom) if they do not want to? This is not continuity in their life. Would they have spent 3 weeks with dad with no contact with mom for 3 weeks if mom and dad were still together? Not likely.
It is not automatically assumed that the mother stays home with the child. In my home, my husband has worked at home from a home based office since before my youngest child was born, and I have worked outside of the home. There are same sex couples where neither parent is biological. There are couples where both parents are "the mother"~ so maternal preference is not possible. Arguing that maternal preference would result from the "Approximation Standard" is wrong and can not be substantiated as a preventative factor for using this instead of the "best interest of the child."
Court systems with child advocates are common, but the assignation of a child advocate is not a given. My best friend has asked the court for an advocate in her case on numerous occasions, even filing a motion for the appointment of an advocate, and the Judge either ignored or denied her continued requests, and her children are 11 and 15 respectively, plenty old enough to express their feelings. Court systems should assign child advocates in ALL cases to evaluate the situation in an unbiased manner. Their evaluation would entail not only a series of interviews with the child, but also a meeting with the child's teachers, without the parents or child present. This advocate's report should be a key to the decision that the Judge makes. Instead, Judges make decisions regarding children many times never having laid eyes on them, or spoken with them.
It is time to usher in a new era in the family courts. It is too easy for Judges to be biased, bought, or lobbied by special interest groups. Doing what is best for the children of divorce does not mean taking children away from one parent and "giving them" to the other. It is also not the best practice to try to split the child down the middle, giving each parent a 50% share of the child, unless that is how the child has lived their lives up until the point of the separation.
Children are people, not property.
The stories are not really the issue here. Judges taking action that is far removed from what would be considered "the best interest of the child" sounds like the stuff of Lifetime movies. The problem goes one step beyond Judicial prejudice because mothers (and fathers) who find themselves wronged by the court have little to no recourse. In most cases, the parent struggling and fighting for their children is doing so as a single parent receiving no spousal support, and receiving no child support, or so little in support that it does not even cover the child's milk money for the week. This parent can not afford an attorney, and because this single parent has to support the child mostly on their own, they have to have a job, which likely disqualifies them from Legal Aid. These people are at the mercy of the court system, and once a ruling comes down, it takes an act of God to undo it. Is there a solution? It would seem. Here are my thoughts.
If I were to ever win a lottery, after I took care of my family's needs, I would take my winnings and form a foundation that provides quality legal help to parents fighting for their children in the courts. I would also ensure that I had on staff appellate attorneys who would help parents wronged by the circuit courts. If only I had unlimited means, I would do this.
Bring in a NEW concept when it comes to making decisions regarding children. "The best interest of the child" needs to be completely thrown OUT of the fray. This concept does not work, it is too objective, and it encourages deceit in the court as one parent tries to one up the other in proving that THEY can provide best for the child~ even though many times the issue is not about the child but about winning. This new concept is called the "approximation standard." This basically means that the child is to have consistency in the post divorce situation. If the child spends 80% of their time with their mother, then ordering joint or shared custody, where the child spends one week at moms and one week at dads is NOT in the best interest of the child. The child did not spend half his time with dad before, why now? This is inconsistent and not "in the best interest of the child" if you want to hang on to that concept.
It is argued that because it is standard for the mother to stay home with the child while the father works, that adopting this would result in "nothing more than maternal preference in all cases." The goal is a sense of continuity for the children in the face of major changes in their home life. It is not about who is the better parent, it is about the child's sense of security, and this does not necessarily mean the child is more attached to one parent than the other. The child should continue to have a relationship with both parents so long as that relationship is reciprocated, and so long as the child is loved, not utilized. You do not force your children to go hug Uncle Leo if Uncle Leo makes them uncomfortable, so why should a child who is uncomfortable be forced to go spend 3 solid weeks with dad (or mom) if they do not want to? This is not continuity in their life. Would they have spent 3 weeks with dad with no contact with mom for 3 weeks if mom and dad were still together? Not likely.
It is not automatically assumed that the mother stays home with the child. In my home, my husband has worked at home from a home based office since before my youngest child was born, and I have worked outside of the home. There are same sex couples where neither parent is biological. There are couples where both parents are "the mother"~ so maternal preference is not possible. Arguing that maternal preference would result from the "Approximation Standard" is wrong and can not be substantiated as a preventative factor for using this instead of the "best interest of the child."
Court systems with child advocates are common, but the assignation of a child advocate is not a given. My best friend has asked the court for an advocate in her case on numerous occasions, even filing a motion for the appointment of an advocate, and the Judge either ignored or denied her continued requests, and her children are 11 and 15 respectively, plenty old enough to express their feelings. Court systems should assign child advocates in ALL cases to evaluate the situation in an unbiased manner. Their evaluation would entail not only a series of interviews with the child, but also a meeting with the child's teachers, without the parents or child present. This advocate's report should be a key to the decision that the Judge makes. Instead, Judges make decisions regarding children many times never having laid eyes on them, or spoken with them.
It is time to usher in a new era in the family courts. It is too easy for Judges to be biased, bought, or lobbied by special interest groups. Doing what is best for the children of divorce does not mean taking children away from one parent and "giving them" to the other. It is also not the best practice to try to split the child down the middle, giving each parent a 50% share of the child, unless that is how the child has lived their lives up until the point of the separation.
Children are people, not property.
No comments:
Post a Comment