A misguided collection of federal and state officials,
divorce attorneys and women's advocates have all united to oppose a
simple proposition: children need both parents.
The
North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is based on the belief
that all parents
have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of
their children, and that no fit parent can lawfully be denied
custody of his or her children. Under the Initiative, when
family law courts adjudicate a divorce, unless there is clear
and convincing evidence that a mother or father is unfit, all
parents will have joint legal and physical custody of their
children.
That more
needs to be done to protect children's relationships with their
parents after divorce cannot be reasonably denied. In a
study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
40% of divorced mothers
admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband's access
or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature
and not due to safety considerations. A study of adult children
of divorce conducted by Glynnis Walker, author of Solomon's
Children: Exploding the Myths of Divorce, found that 42% of
children who lived solely with their mothers reported that their
mothers had tried to prevent them from seeing their fathers
after the divorce.
Even
feminist firebrand Martha Burk admits that our family law system
"looks the other way when the father is denied time with the
kids or the mother moves them far away, effectively ending
contact." And in the small minority of cases where fathers win
sole custody over fit mothers, moms often find similar barriers
placed between them and their children.
Under current North Dakota law, joint custody is rare unless
both parents agree to it, and mothers seeking sole custody
usually get it. The North Dakota Concerned Citizens for
Children's Rights Committee, which was formed specifically to
fight the NDSPI, claims the status quo is what's best for kids.
Yet according to a meta-analysis
of 33 studies of children of divorce published in the American
Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology,
children in shared custody settings have fewer behavior and
emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations,
and better school performance than children in sole custody
arrangements.
The CCCRC
claims that the Initiative places the interests of parents over
the interests of children. Yet when psychologist Joan Kelly
examined children of divorce, she found that they "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. An
Arizona State University study queried adult children of
divorce, and found that more than two-thirds believed "living
equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement
for children."
Government officials have
publicly asserted that the NDSPI will cause the state to lose
federal reimbursement funds for child support enforcement.
However, former Federal Reserve Bank economist R. Mark Rogers,
an influential policy analyst on child support, asserts that
these claims are groundless.
Former lieutenant governor
Lloyd Omdahl opposes the
NDSPI and Shared Parenting because, he claims, "children
fare better under the care of a mother than a father." Yet
according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' new report Child Maltreatment 2004, when one
parent is acting without the involvement of the other parent,
mothers are almost three times as likely to kill their children
as fathers are, and are more than twice as likely to maltreat
them.
Omdahl also claims that "in
the majority of divorces, it's the men who want to get out of
the marriage." Yet a study by economists Margaret Brinig
and Douglas Allen found that most divorce petitions are filed by
women, and that they do so in part because they know they can
expect to obtain sole custody of their children.
In only 6% of cases women
claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands.
Under the
NDSPI, courts will instruct divorcing
parents to develop a
joint parenting plan. If the parents cannot agree on a plan, the
court will facilitate one which will protect and nurture the
loving bonds children share with both parents. Does a child
deserve anything less?
This article first appeared in the Grand Forks
Herald (7/18/06).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children,
the world's largest shared parenting organization.
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