Take
the extreme example of a parent who
most reasonable people would consider
to be unfit--perhaps an alcoholic
father or a mother that severely neglects
the child: Even in those cases the
child will typically beg, cry, and
scream not to be taken from them.
Blood is not just thicker than water—it’s
richer than money and all the better
things that money can buy for the
child.
The
bond between biological parents and
their children is the strongest of
all human bonds—even marriage—and
it must now be treated this way by
our family courts. The first step
is to change the law by passing the
new shared parenting bill supported
by the Fatherhood Coalition.
The
courts have to stop playing God, employing
all sorts of self-styled “child experts”
to determine the “best interests of
the child.” Children are not served
when the state rules that one of their
parents doesn’t pass muster consistent
with some “expert’s” notion of a good
parent, or either is simply not as
good as the other parent.
The
solution is for the law to recognize
that unless a parent is proved to
be seriously harmful to his/her child’s
welfare, every child has an inalienable
right to the love, care and companionship
of both their parents, as do the parents
to the child’s.
The
law must reflect this by establishing
a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody. Besides establishing such
a presumption, the shared parenting
bill removes the present statutory
language that practically encourages
each parent to demonize the other
in order to show that only they are
worthy of their child.
For
example, Ch. 208, section 31 presently
reads in part: “When considering the
happiness and welfare of the child,
the court shall consider whether or
not the child's present or past living
conditions adversely affect his physical,
mental, moral or emotional health.”
This may sound good, but in practice
it serves as an invitation for divorce
lawyers to employ all sorts of costly
behavioral professionals to provide
“evidence” of the harmful effects
of the other parent’s parenting, often
relying on the flimsiest of anecdotal
incidents that, under this present
wording of the law, are sufficient
to demonstrate harm to the “emotional
health” of the child.
The
bill replaces this wording with language
that requires evidence of serious
harm to a child before a parent’s
custodial rights can be abridged.
Establishing such a minimum standard
for ending a parent’s custodial rights
is the only way to stop the present
practice of eliminating a parent form
his/her child’s life for spurious
reasons.
Shared
parenting will also make re-litigation
less likely. Often, fathers
who lose their children after divorce
spend years fighting Herculean legal
battles to restore their relationships
with their children. The only beneficiaries
of these protracted legal battles
are lawyers and family specialists
who derive income from the never-ending
litigation. Ensuring an initial shared
parenting judgment that respects the
parental role of both mothers and
fathers—and thus puts the true best
interests of the children first—is
the best guarantee that children will
be spared these tragic battles that
can consume the best years of their
lives.
#
# #
Mark
Charalambous of Leominster is spokesman
for CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition
| 
