Vote ‘no’ on Measure 6
Measure 6 sounds like a perfect idea – after a divorce parents share their children equally, giving the children fair time with both mom and dad.
And there is no doubt children need both of their parents. Study after study has shown children with two parents, a mom and a dad, fare much better in life. They do better in school, stay away from drugs and alcohol and are much less likely to end up in jail.
The goal of Measure 6 is simple, amend the state constitution to state when parents divorce, judges must assume both parents are equal when it comes to parenting skills. Judges still have the ability to look at all the issues and in extreme situations remove a parent from the equation. But in most cases, the goal would be to have mom and dad share the parenting of the children they made together.
The proponents of Measure 6 point to state statistics that show most of the time mom is given custody of the child with dad having limited visitation. Obviously, in some cases, the roles are reversed and in others, joint custody is ordered. But most of the time, mom gets the kids and dad has to pay child support and visit occasionally.
If Measure 6 is passed, the majority of divorce cases would end with the parents sharing custody of the children. On its face, that is a good thing. But in reality, it’s hard to tell.
The truth is parents are not created equal. In some cases mom is the better parent, in others it is dad. There is no one-size fits-all approach when it comes to parenting. Amending the state constitution to mandate that parents are equal unless “clear and convincing” evidence is proven otherwise is dangerous and not something we support.
In a perfect world, mom and dad would be married and would keep their vows and stay together until the children are grown and gone. But we clearly do not live in a perfect world. Because of that, this measure needs to be voted down.
For shared parenting to work, the parents must be willing to act like adults, get along and make decisions together that are in the best interest of the children. In reality, few marriages end that way.
And if parents are bitter and continue to fight, as they often are, the result will be children torn from every side.
The concept of shared parenting is nice. Unfortunately it does not work in the real world.
Judges are not perfect and they do seem to side with mothers more often than not, but they continue to be the best way for children to be placed in the safest and best situation. And ultimately, that is what this discussion is about.
We urge a “no” vote on Measure 6.
Vote ‘no’ on Measure 6
In the next few weeks, the voters of North Dakota will consider Initiated Measure No. 6, the “shared parenting” bill. This is a very, very bad law that will harm our children and grandchildren.
The sponsors of the bill argue that the purpose of the bill is to have the court consider the presumption that both parents are fit and both must be entitled to be awarded equal parental rights. Our law as it presently exists states that both parents, regardless of gender, are presumed to be fit and proper parents. That is the starting point for the court to consider who will have custody of the child. After that presumption, the courts consider the evidence and the facts of each case and make an award of custody based upon what is in the best interests of the child.
I have been a practicing lawyer for over 39 years and my specialty is family law. Except for one judge in the southern district of North Dakota, every judge that I have ever appeared before, is an unbiased judge, favoring neither the mother nor father, but rather, considers what is in the best interests of the child. Our law, as it presently exists, requires the courts to consider 13 different factors including domestic violence, conduct of the parents, which parent will enable the child to remain in his/her community and school, the morals of the parents, etc. The law as presented by this initiated measure would take these considerations out of the hands of the court.
The bill would require that unless a court found, by “clear and convincing evidence” that a parent is unfit, that parent must be awarded equal time with the child. The level of “clear and convincing evidence” is almost to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. It would make it almost impossible for a parent to prove that the physical, mental, sexual and/or emotional abuse or failure to care for that child in the past still exists.
I want you to consider the fact that your child, grandchild, etc. may have a parent living in Pembina and the other parent in Bowman. The law as proposed would mean that the child would be required to attend school in Pembina for 6 months and Bowman in 6 months. The child would be required to make new friends, meet new teachers, and learn new school rules and curriculum every 6 months. The child will never be able to bond with his/her classmates; be unable for form lifelong relationships with his/her peers or be able to be involved in any scheduled events. Most of you know or are aware of military children who have moved from base to base over their school years. They do not have good memories or relationships with anyone in their school past. Everyone who they went to school with is a stranger.
Several years ago, Judge Robert Holte of Stanley addressed the issue of shared parenting. He stated:
“As a practical matter, it is rare that joint legal custody, which at first blush seems on its face to be a reasonable concept works smoothly, if in fact at all. It first depends upon two parents who virtually agree upon most everything, which is rare indeed. . It appears to the Court that there are many issues on which the parties do not agree with one another. . There is also a problem with requiring the children to change residences on a weekly/monthly/semi-annual basis. While this may be in the ‘parents best interests’, it is not necessarily in the children’s best interest. The children are often caught in situations where each parent has differing ideas.There will be no consistency for the children [if shared parenting were ordered] and it is the Court’s opinion especially in these cases where the evidence shows that children have been significantly affected by the divorce process, that structure and consistency would be preferable to having the children try to have to continuously adopt to a rotating basis between the parties’ two residences. For all of these reasons, the Court finds it to be in the children’s best interests and welfare to have one custodial home, rather than two.”
Over the years, I have learned that there are often two basic reasons why a parent, who is not the primary care giver of a child, would demand that he/she become the primary or joint custodial parent. The first is child support; the absent parent objects to paying for child support to the other parent. They do not recognize that the statutory child support generally is less than half of the actual cost of raising a child. Who will purchase the school supplies, the school clothes, the summer clothing, etc? Too often one parent ends up purchasing all of the child’s needs without help from the other parent. The second reason why a parent who is not the historical care giver of the child makes a demand for the custody of the child is they use the custody of the child to continue to emotionally abuse the child or other parent. They know that a child would be better off with the other parent, but they know that by holding the child hostage in a custodial situation, the other parent is emotionally damaged by his/her concern for the welfare of the child.
What you will not find in the synopsis of the measure on the ballot is the fact that a parent may, upon passage of the measure, demand that the court re-open his/her case and apply the new law. There are over 25,000 present orders in North Dakota that address custody. Each of these cases will be sent back to the court for review. We have enough gridlock in our court systems at the present time. We need not add to it.
As I stated, in 39 years and thousands of custody disputes, I have found only one case wherein the parents could set aside their differences and properly utilize shared parenting. If the law as proposed passes, thousands of your children, grandchildren and children of friends will be placed in situations which are clearly not in the child’s best interest. Let our courts do their job; trust in the judges to place the child where he/she will have the best opportunity to fulfill their life destiny. Vote “no” on the shared parenting bill.
Vote ‘no’ on Measure 6
October of each year is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It’s an important time for us all to reflect upon the havoc caused by this violence and to have serious discussions about the ways we can protect families including women, men, and children from abuse.
October is also the last full month before the elections in November. The proximity of these two events has got me thinking about how the issues on the ballot November can have an effect on survivors of domestic violence.
In particular, the more I learn about Measure 6 (the equal parenting measure), the more concerned I am by what it would do to families struggling with violence. Essentially, the measure would apply when a court is making a child custody decision when parents divorce or separate. It would require the court to give each parent custody of the children half of the time.
The measure’s supporters say that the court can deviate from this arrangement if one parent can show the other is unfit by clear and convincing evidence. However, this is woefully inadequate in cases of domestic violence because it’s rare that a victim has legal proof that the violence occurred. Multiple studies show that domestic violence is one of the most chronically underreported crimes. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, only 25 percent of physical assaults, 20 percent of rapes, and 50 percent of stalkings perpetuated by intimate partners are reported to police. Statistics also show that 30 percent to 60 percent of perpetrators of violence also abuse children in the household.
Given these facts, it is downright dangerous to force a child to live with a domestic abuser 50 percent of the time. It’s also dangerous to force one parent who has been subjected to violence by the other to come in frequent contact with his or her ex when shuffling children back and forth every other week.
For these reasons I am absolutely voting “no” on Measure 6 and urge you to do the same.
Vote ‘yes’ for our children