August 30, 2006
-
Shared Parenting
I was reading an article about Shared Parenting on foxnews.com. The article, written by Wendy McElroy, was describing a vote to take place during the general election this fall in North Dakota.
The law would make joint child custody the default option during a divorce or separation unless one parent was proven unfit.
The thinking is that this will take some of the battle out of child custody cases. More and more states are encouraging joint custody in divorce cases.
Should joint custody be the default for divorce child custody issues?
Comments (111)
I think that might be a good place to start….
Yay!
first!
Yes–If it is what both parents want……
hahahahahah YESSSSS the first!!
now everyone below….visit my site bitches!!!LOL
i think it shud b like that, execept if one of the parents are abusive or something like that
I think that’s a good idea.
LOL xi_luv !!!! too bad you’re not first!
Not a good idea I want my kids to get the hell away from me, that’s the reason I’m divorcing their mother
they should give the kids to me. or some crazed volcano god. good riddance either way.
yes, i think that is a good place to start.
YES !
I think its nice when parents can get along for the sake of their children. And most families there will be 1 child that is close to 1 parent and 1 close to the other. It could work. A happy family make a better family. If I gave birth to a child then I would consider them mine.
While I know plenty of parents who are both equally competent, loving parents, I also know a few who absolutely are not, but who can nevertheless pass the psychological evaluations, and who end up damaging their children because the court thought they were fine.
So: in most cases, that’s a fine arrangement; for the few that are not, however, it’s important not to make it too difficult to change the default when it’s apppropriate.
There are no good default starting points. Each case is different.
yes.
It already is here, unless one parent is proven unfit. My ex and I had that when we were divorced back in 1999. I guess Missouri is all bassackwards.
ok….almost lmfao
shared custody is ok if the only problem was that the parents were no longer in love, but if abuse or drugs or other things are the reason for the marriage ending then the kids should get as far away from those things possible.
it could make things a lot easier on the kids if the parents just divorced because they can’t live together anymore. not because their abusive or something.
It needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Some parents are too selfish to give a crap about the kids they’re responsible for. I would hate to force a kid into that situation. On the other hand, those parents shouldn’t be left off the hook either. They should at least be responsible financially even if they want nothing to do with the kid.
It’s pretty much that way here. Unfortunately, in my case, the fact that the ex is a convicted sex offender does not make them unfit.
Joint custody ONLY work is BOTH parents are commited to their children and are able to communicate and negotiate when differences happen to find a middle ground.
If they can’t compromise it will NOT benefit the child/children and often turns ugly putting the children smack in the middle.
yeah….my parents have joint custody….it works out really good
Thanks for dropping by Dan
…Hope you are having a good Wednesday
no. let the kid decide.
I think it should be if the kids are under 14. If they’re over 14, the kids should decide.
yes indeed
no. let the kid decide.
Posted 8/30/2006 at 1:40 PM by AllYouNeedIsLoVE_846
that sound like a fun idea AllYouNeed… but i dont think a 4year old kan comprehand who is the better and more fit parent.
It would certainly save a lot of heartache for the fathers. Although they aren’t necessarily as nurturing as the mothers, they still want to be a part of the child’s life too. If he doesn’t, he can decline those rights.
Yes. This should be the default unless a reason is proven for one parent to not be involved, or unless the child is old enough to make a different decision.
At age 16, I have the right to chose which of my parents I want to live with. I’d never change the shared custody we currently have set up. I’d never deprave my parents of their son. I love seeing my dad every other weekend. Even though I am 16 so I must hate my parent(s), I’d go as far as to say I wouldn’t want to take away my mother’s partial custody. As fit parents, they have the right to their children.
Thank goodness I am “child free”!
I would hate to be in a situation like that…
Hurray for no kids! Weeeee!
XoxoxoX
yes.
You know… it’s not a bad idea for now… and it may keep a lot of petty cases out of the court system!
I think so. HOpefully that will keep kids from being pawns in a divorce.
It certainly makes sense to me, all things being equal.
definitely
it tends to be the moms that get the custody and dad’s deserve to be with their kids just as much
only time will tell if this will actually help, I guess…
I have a question for you.
Would you rather:
a) miss family.
b) miss friends.
You gotta be really careful with stuff like that. I know of several parents who have custody of their kids and shouldn’t have. It would be awesome for parents who can still get along somewhat to share custody, but you would have to be very sure that the default was very easy to change so that kids don’t wind up hurt or neglected. So it may be a good idea to start with, but only if safeguards are in place to protect the kids. The children have to be the primary focus.
it really won’t stop the ugliness of the divorce. all it will do is get more ugly when the parents try to prove the other unfit..
Yes.
I think ti’s a good default. Then the child and parents can decide whether that’s not working out, or the law can decide if a parent is unfit.
Yeah, as a ND kid, I think this is a great idea. It makes divorce much easier.
-Guru on the Hill
I think joint custody is painful for kids, just as all situations that come from divorce will probably be. My parents are going through a divorce right now, and I would much rather have one official home than feel like my life was divided. There’s no convenient answer to the problem of custody in the midst of divorce. It may be sensative to the different situations and factors of the parents’ ability.
Every situation is different!
Yes. Both parents should be in the childs life as much as possible. ANd from another pov, parents shouldnt be “off the hook” and get away with not help raising the child.
I think it is better than the system we have now.
people should just not get divorced in the first place. when you get married, you sign a contract – to love that person and to take care of that person for the rest of your and their life. no matter what, no exceptions.
You sign that same contract again for each child you have.
Yes. Fathers have just as much right and obligation in their kids upbringing.
I must be stupid — what is the default currently? Shouldn’t it always be joint custody unless one parent is unfit (or, worse, doesn’t want the kid)?
I like joint custody. I would hate having to stop seeing either one of my parents. But then again, they get along ok (no fighting anymore, can stand to be in the same room etc.) I guess that helps.
Nice blog setup. Really nice.
yes. absolutely
this is totally out of the question
if they got a divorce to separate then why do they want to share now?
No. For one thing, it’s too hard to define “unfit”… and a lot of parents would get custody who really shouldn’t. Also, some people just don’t want to be parents. If you try to force them… well, how much good would a completely unwilling parent do? They should still pay support, though. And, finally, in some cases the parents would use the joint custody as a weapon, using it as leverage to get their own way and putting the child in the middle. There would still be disputes over who got the kids when.
I agree completely with Orionis73…
It so much depends on the situation.
Every case is different. I see no reason for a “default” in the first place.
It doesn’t matter. You’re asking a couple who couldn’t get along well enough to stay married to get along well enough to resolve parenting issues.
It sounds like a good idea; going to take a ‘wait and see’ vantage point on this, though.
Yes.
Yeah I think it should be like that. After all, the child should be affected by the decision as little as possible.
-Jared
yes
Well, I would say assuming both parents live in the same general vicinity, so they would have the same access to friends and activities from either parent’s house, it is not a bad idea at all.
YES!!!!
The problems that the parents have with it are far outweighed by the benifits children recieve having two parents, not just one…
it certainly would make things much easier
Most states issue joint custody with one parent having primary physical custody. This meaning that the child(ren) physically reside with one parent, but decisions concerning health, schooling, issurance and such are to be joint decisions.
Sure, why not?
i think it sounds good
i also think divorce is a VERY bad idea
seldom is it condoned in the bible…
Encourage joint custody.
Oppose FOX news and all other forms of media bias.
ideally…this is a good starting point. however, a lot of divorces aren’t ideal.
Divorce shouldn’t happen. But failing that, this sounds like an amazing idea.
screw the custody…spark up the joint!
I don’t think one size fits all is right. My son’s kids have one week w/him the next w/his ex and it’s a nightmare. they are constantly in some sort of upheavel and frankly, discipline and structure are hard to do when that is the case.
Joint custody huh? And just why does that make things less hostile between the parents?
how about….fuckin NO!!!!!
ive seen the shit that can happen from some worthless political who only sees divorce as a legal issue because of his “good idea”
the two parents must be totally commited to their children and if they arent then some blake law should make the kids suffer even more.
so how about ONLY if the two parents can PROVE they are good then let that happen
EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT, NO BLAKET LAW WILL FIX THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it would be better for kids at an impressionable age, but as soon as they become teenagers, let the kids decide where he wants to go and for how long…
When my parents were divorced I went to my dad’s every other weekend and there was some rotation on holidays. I don’t know if that’s joint custody or not because it was definately more slanted to one parent.
But anymore sharing would have made school and a social life really hard.
I would have the schedul everything around my parents.
It is a tough situation all around. Like those who said above, I think this should be decided on a case by case basis. I also think that the father often gets a bad deal in regards to child support (and that is often the source of fighting— it comes down to money yet again). I recently witnessed a coupld of divorces. One without kids and one with. The one with the kids was so much messier. The poor kids became such pawns.
I am so thankful that my parents never divorced.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
crap LET THE KID DECIDE! I HATE STATES LIKE THAT! IT DOESN’T HELP ANYTHING, IT JUST MAKES THINGS WORSE!
least for me it does… not that either parent is unworthy… just that I hate one of them…
If both of the parents are able to raise a child, then yes.
No. It’s too hard to prove that unfit parents are unfit. Especially in cases of small children. They should have to fix that problem before considering it manditory that the kids have to spend more time with both – and subsequently the abusive parent.
No! My parents are divorced and have…jointish custody. I have to visit my dad a lot and I hate it. He’s a abusive douchebag…anyway, I think they should let the kid decied if he/she is over the age of like 8.
As I am in the middle of a divorce…it would not work for me or my son. His father left almost two years ago, moved 1,000 miles away and has virtually no contact with my son. The two times he HAS bothered to pick up the phone, he was just trying to drill or son for information about me and gave the kid panic attacks.
So no, it should not be done by default. My son’s father is not necessarily unfit… but he is most definitely too selfish and uninterested in being a father.
Yes sir. I mean, a child is both parent’s responsibility regardless of what happens, unless a parent chooses to have nothing to do with the child, but most of the time, I hope this isn’t the case….
However, if that’s the case, they should do away with child support. If both parent’s can’t support the child seperately, well, why should one pay the other, when they both take care of the kid part of the time???
My mom got child support when my parent’s divorced when I was 15. However, my dad lived 1200 miles away in Florida, and didn’t really see me unless I visited, on the other hand…. I never saw a dime of the child support, but chances are in the end my mom spent it on rent and other things, but…I never got new clothes or anything “kids” need and for the amount my mom was getting…you’d think I could have….anyways..I’m rambling….
In any case it’s feasible, yes. Unless one parent is unfit, obviously.
yes…
The kids should have a part in the decission too. Neither parent should”force” a kid to be with a parent they don’t want to be with though.
As long as both parents were fit and actually wanted the children, then yes.
A lot of people are missing the part about the parents being fit….lol I think some people just read the question and not the whole post. If one parent is abusive or negligent, then obviously this wouldn’t apply to them.
I think it’s great, unless one of the parents really doesn’t want to be responsible for their children. I think that they should only be denied joint custody if they are unfit or refuse it, but they should have the option to deny it.
Sounds like a good idea as long as provision is made to deny custody for appropriate reasons. And if a parent does not want to share custody, that should be considered as well.
yes, its sad when little girls are without dads just because they have a mother.
In many cases custody battles often involve $$$. I suppose default joint custody is a good thing. Now I could go into the whole divorce issue but I’ll wait ’til a question about divorce.
Yes, unless the child is a teen, and then it comes down to their choice.
It takes 2 parents to make them and it is better to have two raise them for balance, unless one is unfit, which is covered. Sounds like a good plan. Some people may not like it because being raised by one parent rather than two may cause a blur in gender distinction and lead people to realize that they were “born gay.”
Only if that’s what the parents want.
Shared parenting. We do it in the same house. It’s easier on the kids.
I think they have the right idea.
No …
I did the joint custody thing simply because I thought it was fair myself and I still had the final say since I was custodial parent. After a couple of years of SuperDad, he hasn’t seen his daughter in 3 years and it’s been longer than that since he’s paid child support. He still gets to claim her every other year on his taxes!
Instead of being fair and by trying to avoid an agrument, I now have to pay ANOTHER lawyer to straighten things out …
Sounds great in theory, but it might not always be in the child’s best interest. I know so many fathers (well, mothers too) who are certainly not “unfit”, just not as nurturing and interested in their children as the other parent. It certainly wouldn’t benefit their children to end up sharing their time between a loving, attentive home, and a so-so one.
>It needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Some parents are too selfish to give a crap about the kids they’re responsible for. – YourOuterCritic
I totally agree…there should be no “default.” Each situation is different. Some “parents” don’t act much like parents and live lifestyles that do not put children and their needs and welfare first. That is often why people split up. Also in cases of drugs in the home, abuse of the mother, other issues that may not find a parent “unfit” – there’s no way the child should have to live there. And what about parents who live in different states? Not fair to the child to bounce back and forth and not have a stable life.
yay! im the 101st! hi im casey at bats son obi-wan so how do u get so many comments? bye
most difentlly…Smile
As a defult, yes, it could work, but case by case should be excercized. Rational adults getting a divorce are not always right in the head when it comes to looking after kids.
’nuff said…
Totally.
Totally.
lol
i like goat
yes…even though i really don’t like divorce…but if you have to divorce then yes.
I think that’s a fair place to start.
I’M FROM TEXAS WHERE IT’S ALREADY JOINT CUSTODY. IT DOESN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR MEN. IN JOINT CUSTODY THEY HAVE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (USUALLY THE MOTHER) AND THE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT. THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. 9EDUCATION, MEDICAL ETC……..) WHEN THE CUSTODIAL PARENT CHOOSES TO BREAK THE LAE THE COURTS DON’T DO ANYTHING. THEY SAY ” IF WE FINE THEM IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN.” IF THEY PUT THEM IN JAIL THE IT TAKES THEIR MAIN CARE TAKER AWAY.
THEY WILL PUT A MAN IN JAIL AND KEEP HIM FROM HIS CHILDREN THOUGH. THEY WILL FINE THEM AS WELL. THE JUDGES WILL TELL YOU IF YOU DON’T PAY YOUR BILLS THEY WON’T PUT YOU IN JAIL BUT IF YOU DON’T TAKE CARE OF YOUR KIDS THEN YOU’LL GO TO JAIL. THEN WHEN YOU’RE IN JAIL YOUR CHILDREN SUFFER EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALY. IT’S A NO WIN SITUATION……………..BY THE WAY, I AM FEMALE BUT SUPPORT FATHER’S RIGHTS!
Sounds good. Elimintates using the kid as a tool, a weapon or a point of leverage in a divorce. Should also eliminate the support issues?
no. each case is different. there shouldn’t be a default anything. and unless the parents can be adults and cooperate, things can and will get ugly.
i speak from experience.
*nods*
as much as my dads put me through shit, and treated me like he’d rather not see me, i think im a better person for having had him in my life.