A top California
family court judge has blasted
ultra feminists' efforts to
undermine the state's child-centered
joint custody law. Using strong
language, Los Angeles County
Superior Court Commissioner-Judge
Richard A. Curtis in
a 4500-word statement, urged
the California Legislature
to turn down bills violating
the principle that children
need the love and nurture
of both parents.
He described
AB 2116, one of three pending
bills, as "...a mean-spirited
attack on joint custody brought
on behalf of angry, embittered
parents who are incapable
of cooperation in their children's
best interest and who only
wish to bend the court system
and our healthy, child-centered
body of law to their end of
controlling their children
and controlling the other
parent through their children."
Although
unnamed, his target in part
was the National Organization
of Women, leader of a drive
aimed at legislatively emasculating
the state's strong joint custody
law that serves as a national
model.
Current anti-joint
custody proposals would:
* delete
from the joint custody law
a requirement for "frequent
and continuing contact"
for the noncustodial parent,
* delete
language instructing judges
in awarding custody to consider
which parent is more likely
to allow children contact
with the noncustodial parent,
* bar
judges from awarding joint
custody if either parent
objects,
* free
the custodial parent to move
with the children without
court permission,
* tie
the child's welfare to a "healthy
primary relationship"
(ie, with mom),
* declare
psychological adjustment "not
related to particular visitation
or frequency or length of
visits," and
* stress
the importance for the children
of the "primary caretaker."
"Primary
caretaker," is the code
phrase, he charged, "for
a lot of inappropriate public
policy statements they wish
to promulgate." Using
it, their ultimate goal is
to transfer custody determinations
from judges to administrators.
"They
don't want equality, they
don't want justice, they don't
want individuals dealt with
as unique people with individual
needs ...They would be perfectly
satisfied with an administrative
hearing system which delivers
cookie cutter results so long
as they're playing with a
deck stacked in their favor,"
he declared.
Studies have
shown, he pointed out, that
single custodial fathers are
every bit as capable of nurturing
their children in their own
way. Passage of the bills,
in effect, would intensify
litigation and nullify current
practices' success in persuading
couples to mediate and settle.
Such non-legal
techniques, however, simply
don't work, he added, for
the five percent "who
aren't too tightly wrapped."
"But it is very important
that the trial court continue
to have the power to impose
joint custody on the far larger
majority . . .who come to
court . . .tightly wrapped
but in an uncooperative frame
of mind. ...most such parents
will learn to put aside their
differences for the sake of
giving their children a peaceful
life and benefits of having
two involved parents."
To the contrary,
he warned, "if the backers
manage to hornswoggle the
Legislature into passing this
bill, they will have succeeded
in getting you to say, 'The
public policy . . . is to
discourage parents to share
the rights and responsibilities
of child-rearing.' They will
have succeeded in (putting)
the child right back into
the middle of their petty
personal conflicts..."
The bill
backers, he concluded, "like
all zealots, victims, and
self-righteous people, have
a peculiarly warped view of
reality which prevents them
from seeing the other side.
. . They are very, very dangerous,
one-sided and unbalanced people
from whom to take public policy
suggestions."
-++++++++++++++++++++++++
The American
Coalition for Fathers and
Children http://www.acfc.org
Additional information is
located at:
http://www.secondwives.org
|