Yeah CA is the worst.
The divorce/custody industry is a self serving multi billion dollar industry. It NEEDS families to not work it out, it wants you to fail. A f'n monster feeding off of the destruction of thousands of families. Godzilla got nothing on this. Any father that is able to persevere through this system is a god damn super hero in my eyes. Every time an amber alert goes off on my cell, I think about this.
This is a little Canoeish, but seriously important to me and very relevant to a number of dads and maybe even moms in this thread....
I believe children have a right to not only love, but receive love from BOTH parents. As such I joined an advocacy group know as the National Parents Organization. We are actively seeking to change the laws in several states (all of them eventually) so threads like this one don't have so many parents with children stolen from them posting.
In Kansas it is SB257
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/sb257/
Creating a presumption of child's equal time with parents during court determinations of legal custody, residency or parenting time.
I am part of a leadership team helping to make this happen, and have meetings with Key lawmakers this week hoping to push this forward. If you are in Kansas please contact me and join the movement.
Oh... and about the Child support issue.. It is Title 4d section 458 of the social security act causing all of the problems...
In fact... While at the State capitol last week a Senator (unnamed for now 
) approached me to say our bill might have some problems going forward.... When asked she just mentioned that it could cause a budget deficit... For what reason you might ask? Well... It is like this. For every dollar of child support ordered the state receives money from the Federal Government (Title 4d section 458) to use pretty much however they want in connection with Child support collection activities, Establishment of Paternity, or support services for Children and Families.. Or almost anything else....
Allowing parents to support their kids by spending time with them, directly paying their expenses may reduce the dollars a state can receive. Some lawmakers are pretty content with the idea that needlessly restricting a parents time with the children in order to pay for services they wouldn't need if the time wasn't so restricted is acceptable. It is shameful.
Please call your representation and tell them to support shared parenting.
Oh... and as a side note... Arizona passed one of the strongest Shared parenting reforms in the Nation.. A study was recently completed (will be published in April in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage) and while Shared Parenting was the norm, child support awards only decreased by a nearly insignificant margin, while the default rate on payments declined. (Parents with an opportunity to be actively involved almost never default even when not actively involved).
The only group of Professional Arizonians polled who are undecided about the positive impact of the 2013 Arizona Law.... You guessed it.. Attorney'$.
I’ve only been involved in one case personally but it turned into a very painful E36 M3show. A friend’s wife left him with two kids age 5&2 and disappeared. No note, call, nothing. A few weeks later she calls to say she was tired of being a grown up and is out having the fun she missed out on when she was young. He raises the kids for a few years, meets another woman and marries her. The ex gets remarried, finds she can’t have kids with new husband and sues for custody of kids she went years without seeing. She almost won too because “kids belong with their mother”, “she turned her life around” and such but a few of us chipped in for a really good lawyer to put a stop to it. While he resisted getting a lawyer at first and the one we got made us all feel a bit uncomfortable but it was absolutely the right thing to do.
It's the contents of threads like this that flash through my mind whenever someone tells me that they have a new bundle of joy on the way.
"Dude, I REALLY hope it works out cause if it doesn't (50/50 chance according to some stats) you're berkeleyed!"
But hope springs eternal.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:It's the contents of threads like this that flash through my mind whenever someone tells me that they have a new bundle of joy on the way.
"Dude, I REALLY hope it works out cause if it doesn't (50/50 chance according to some stats) you're berkeleyed!"
But hope springs eternal.
Yeah, me too. Me too.
In reply to Wally :
Most jurisdictions have explicitly abandoned "tender years doctrine" (i.e., young children should be in primary custody of mother) in favor of joint custody/what's in best interest of child. In the laSt 10 cases I've done, 5 were joint custody, 3 went to mother and 2 went exclusively to father.
ronholm said:For every dollar of child support ordered the state receives money from the Federal Government (Title 4d section 458) to use pretty much however they want in connection with Child support collection activities, Establishment of Paternity, or support services for Children and Families.. Or almost anything else....
This is the kind of bonkers crap that I am referring to when I talk about wasteful federal government spending (not that I do it *much* here). It's like having a cop who makes a percentage of each speeding ticket given - regardless of whether or not the fine even sticks in court, or is paid in the end. I guess I can see how it became the law (kinda makes sense that the more volume of child support you have the more cost associated with administration), but it throws the incentive schemes way out of whack.
Ovid_and_Flem said:In reply to Wally :
Most jurisdictions have explicitly abandoned "tender years doctrine" (i.e., young children should be in primary custody of mother) in favor of joint custody/what's in best interest of child. In the laSt 10 cases I've done, 5 were joint custody, 3 went to mother and 2 went exclusively to father.
Which State? and were these shared parenting plans (i.e. 50/50 or at least 60/40) or the more typical Primary and every other weekend parent?
Was one parent or the other adjudicated unfit?
(here is a small sample of the research. http://www.chess.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.166729.1392279984!/menu/standard/file/Warshak-Social%20Science%20and%20Parenting%20Plans%20for%20Young%20Children%20final%20ms%20distribution%20copy.pdf)
In reply to Ovid_and_Flem :
This was about 15 years ago but the court people were generally very much pro mother.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:It's the contents of threads like this that flash through my mind whenever someone tells me that they have a new bundle of joy on the way.
"Dude, I REALLY hope it works out cause if it doesn't (50/50 chance according to some stats) you're berkeleyed!"
But hope springs eternal.
50% of marriages end in divorce, but 50% of first marriages do not. That number is 25% or so.
ronholm said:Ovid_and_Flem said:In reply to Wally :
Most jurisdictions have explicitly abandoned "tender years doctrine" (i.e., young children should be in primary custody of mother) in favor of joint custody/what's in best interest of child. In the laSt 10 cases I've done, 5 were joint custody, 3 went to mother and 2 went exclusively to father.
Which State? and were these shared parenting plans (i.e. 50/50 or at least 60/40) or the more typical Primary and every other weekend parent?
Was one parent or the other adjudicated unfit?
(here is a small sample of the research. http://www.chess.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.166729.1392279984!/menu/standard/file/Warshak-Social%20Science%20and%20Parenting%20Plans%20for%20Young%20Children%20final%20ms%20distribution%20copy.pdf)
Mississippi.
Almost all states have abolished tender years doctrine. I am not aware of a single state that gives presumption on maternal custody preference. Largely as a result of SCOTUS interpretation of 14th amendment theory of equal protection. None of my last cases involved unfit parents. Best interests of child was rule that was applied. Mississippi statute states a preference for joint physical custody if possible.
Ovid_and_Flem said:
Mississippi.Almost all states have abolished tender years doctrine. I am not aware of a single state that gives presumption on maternal custody preference. Largely as a result of SCOTUS interpretation of 14th amendment theory of equal protection. None of my last cases involved unfit parents. Best interests of child was rule that was applied. Mississippi statute states a preference for joint physical custody if possible
I appreciate the answers to my questions... I have a few more. First a definition question.. in KS Joint doesn't mean equal in reference to parenting time (custody). When you say joint do you mean a equal or near equal division of parenting time?
It sounds though like you and your state have a much better track record than most attorneys. The 2013 Census reports 82% of custodial parents were mothers. This despite many laws and statutes saying no preference with be given based on gender. In KS there is a specific statute which instruct the age (including infants) isn't a reason alone to select the mother. It doesn't matter, the only time that card gets played is in the case of a unfit mother, otherwise she still is going to win the vast majority of the time around here.
When you say out of the last 10 custody cases 5 of them were joint. Is your definition of joint a 50/50 or something near to that parenting plan? And the others.. If the parents were fit and capable, why not a 50/50 award? Were in those case each parent seeking a primary arrangement?
What I am seeing quickly searching google is MS encourages parents quite strongly to agree on a shared parenting plan, and if they won't they resort back to a winner take all Primary and non custodial arrangement done under the pretense parents in conflict cannot have a shared plan because it will expose the children to more conflict, and less time with one parent will somehow reduce this conflict. A position which is contradicted by all research on the subject. Shared parenting may not reduce (or increase) conflict, but the children do better because they don't fundamentally lose a parent. (this of course assuming capable willing parents)
The above is exactly what is happening in my case now. The Judge won't order shared parenting (even with evidence of her trying to alienate the kids from me) because we don't agree and "conflict" exists. It is mind boggling because this basically gives her a license to create minor conflict continually to protect her primary parent status. It is like living in the Twilight Zone.
Do you ever feel compelled (even under your laws) to get certain Judges in your District assigned to your cases based on the gender of your client?
In reply to ronholm :
Last question first...for all courts in my jurisdictions cases are randomly assigned by computer when you file pleadings. Specifically implemented because of "judge shopping."
Second...keep in mind there are 2 types of custody: legal and physical. Almost universally parties are granted joint legal custody; i.e., right to medical records, school records, etc. As far as physical custody, primary physical custody is often a matter of practical matters such as residence proximity to schools or respective parents work schedules, etc. Although it is changing in our society traditionally mothers tend to be primary caregivers, though that is obviously not always the case. Additionally, child's prfrence is often a consideration, especially if beyond age of 12. Childs preference is merely a consideration for judge, not controlling. Other considerations may include desire to keep siblings (and half siblings) together.
Joint physical custody does not come down to exact physical time together. But generally pretty close to 50/50.I've had unique cases where parents live close enough to each other that children, especially older ones, essentially float between two households.
One thing I encourage with parents is they are better served to come up with a system they can all live with rather than turn it over to 3 strangers in the form of a judge and 2 lawyers to come up with a plan no one can live with.
When the parties can't agree it becomes necessary for judge to make a decision. Forced joint custody usually doesn't work. In any event, all my judges give very liberal visitation to non primary custodians, like several weeks in summer, visitation beyond just two weekends per month, extended holiday visitation, etc.
Parental alienation is real and even if not overt can arise subconsciously. That being said, you are better served if you keep adult matters and issues between parents although frustration can get to you, avoid even inadvertent alienation. Kids who see conflict between their divorced parents invariably blame themselves .
Finally it is pretty clear from what I've observed as well as a number of studies that primary custodial parents have a more difficult time financially even considering child support awards. Seems to be a function of the non custodial parent taking attitude "well I'm paying what judge ordered so my financial obligation is met."
In your experience what most often causes the failures in 'forced' Joint(Shared-50/50) custody?
Try this one as a Learned Treastise sometime 
Re-examining the Research on Parental Conflict, Coparenting, and Custody Arrangements
http://sharedparentingworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-Nielsen-Parental-Conflict.pdf
. Conflict and poor coparenting are not linked to worse outcomes for children in joint physical custody than in sole physical custody. The quality of the parent– child relationship is a better predictor than conflict of children’s outcomes
Tomorrow the Kansas Senate Judicial Committee meets for a Hearing on SB257
http://ksnt.com/2018/01/29/new-bill-pushing-for-changes-to-child-custody-after-divorce/
And all of these objections raised by this attorney would all be clear and convincing reasons to make a determination other than equal parenting time based on factors already in the statute.
So in Kansas... The opposition is not even really seriously trying the "shuffling the kids" argument..
This is what they are rolling out..
Dollars are more important than families.
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/documents/fisc_note_sb257_00_0000.pdf
You'll need to log in to post.
