Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Parenting vs. Equal Parening

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shared Parenting vs. Equal Parening

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/share...ids-karen-covy

    Shared Parenting v. Equal Parenting

    I can't seem to post the text of the article but it's an excellent discussion outlying both sides of the argument.

    Give it a read!

  • #2
    I liked the article. I disagree with the conclusion of course, but I appreciated the article anyway. I have to process the distinction between shared and equal, and figure out if it is just another way for the mother's rights groups to keep kids away from their fathers. "Joint Custody" for example is a term that seems fair but is in practice nothing but... in fact it is rarely even joint.


    Brief thoughts:


    The laws don’t make any exceptions for kids whose parents live hours away from each other.
    Of course it does. It is a rebuttable presumption. If the parents live hours away from each other, then that is the reason not to have equal parenting.


    The new laws would throw the “best interests of the children” standard right out the window. They leave little room for considerations of what’s best for children, or even what children want.
    It does nothing of the sort. It is a rebuttable presumption. If you can show that the best interests of the kids would not be served by equal time, then there will not be equal time.


    The difference is that you actually have to show that equal is not good. You can't just dance in court and say some heartfelt statements about the kids... if you are going to strip the kids away from a parent, then you had better damn well have some evidence to do that.


    the Illinois laws only allow judges to deviate from the 50/50 standard if a parent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the children would be seriously endangered. It says nothing about danger to the spouse
    Wait, are we concerned about the best interests of the kids or the mom? This paragraph seems to imply that the mom's interests should outweigh that of the kids.


    If the father is good to the kids, but bad to the mom, then there is nothing wrong with equal parenting. Make transitions happen at the police station to keep mom safe. It doesn't make sense to punish the kids.


    That means domestic violence victims would be forced to live in the same area as their abusers, and to make child-related decisions with them.
    Again, losing track here if we are looking out for the mom or the kids.


    According to most experts, at least 90% of all divorce cases settle out of court. The 10% or so that go to trial are the most difficult, highest conflict, cases.
    Amicably divorcing people do not need an equal parenting law. They are able to work out their issues either on their own or with the help of a mediator or collaborative divorce professionals. They are usually able to do what is truly best for their children, regardless of whether that means that they establish a 50/50 parenting schedule, or something else.
    It’s the people who can’t work things out who rely on the law and the courts to tell them what to do.
    Negotiations happen under the shadow of the law. People agree to pay child support because if they go to court they will be forced to do so.


    Fathers don't fight for 50% because if they go to court they probably won't get it.


    If courts suddenly started ordering 50% most of the time, then most fathers would negotiate for 50%, because that is what they can get.


    Yes, only 10% go to court, but the other 90% negotiate under the shadow of what they expect will happen if they go to court.


    While adjusting child support based upon time spent with a child seems fair, most men still earn more than most women. Women therefore argue that if their support is reduced based upon parenting time, they won’t be able to make ends meet.
    Do I even have to dignify this with a counter argument? Is the author seriously arguing that non-equal custody is a good thing because it forces fathers to pay more child support?


    Please tell me that nobody would actually buy that crap.


    Why do so many woman's rights advocates care so much about the mom, and so little about their kids?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Janus View Post
      Why do so many woman's rights advocates care so much about the mom, and so little about their kids?
      I think you are mixing up "advocates" with "activist" here.

      If we re-write your statement to say:
      Why do so many female rights activists care so much about the mother, and so little about the children?

      Your question has significantly more weight and is easier to answer. Advocates vs activist. This article reads more from an "activist" standpoint although they are trying to appear non-biased. But, as you have already identified that they are hiding behind the veil of "advocacy" but, demonstrate "activist" tendencies.

      The same can be said of "fathers rights activists" too though. The problem is that they are seeking to make political change and usually to better their own interests. Advocates are generally trying to change things to better society.

      Its like ANTIFA and the MAGA folks. Whenever you take an "activist" position you fall on the extreme edge of the argument and forget (or ignore) the counterpoint to your position.

      Their arguments are too far from the centre of the debate where the children lie. Both "father's rights activists" and "mother's rights activists". They both use "extreme" arguments and "fear" to bolster their position.

      The problem with both those groups is that they don't influence Al Jorgensen to make awesome techno influenced heavy metal about their activism.

      Goot Luck!
      Tayken
      Last edited by Tayken; 04-06-2018, 11:09 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good article! Thanks for sharing.

        They talk about: "Over 25 states considered adopting shared parenting laws last year. More than 35 states are considering adopting shared parenting laws this year."

        Does anyone know what the situation is in Canada? Are similar law, shared or equal parenting, being proposed in any provinces?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
          I think you are mixing up "advocates" with "activist" here.

          I like that distinction.


          Why do so many female rights activists care so much about the mother, and so little about the children?









          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
            Does anyone know what the situation is in Canada? Are similar law, shared or equal parenting, being proposed in any provinces?

            An extremist conservative MP put forth a proposal to create a presumption of equal parenting in Canada.


            Unfortunately, he wasn't the best flag-bearer for the cause.


            It was completely shut down by the government.




            http://www.lawtimesnews.com/author/a...efeated-11296/


            https://www.complexfamilylaw.com/blo...f-change.shtml

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Janus View Post
              An extremist conservative MP put forth a proposal to create a presumption of equal parenting in Canada.


              Unfortunately, he wasn't the best flag-bearer for the cause.


              It was completely shut down by the government.




              http://www.lawtimesnews.com/author/a...efeated-11296/


              https://www.complexfamilylaw.com/blo...f-change.shtml
              It was addressed here too: http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/ePe...1933_JUS_E.pdf

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ensorcelled View Post
                In fact, a review of reported family law decisions from 2015 showed that in 79% of parenting cases, courts ordered either joint custody (where parents make decisions about their child together) or shared custody (where parents make decisions together and the child spends at least 40% of the time with each parent.

                I wish they cited how they came up with this "review of reported" case law. Who did it? Not that I don't believe it but, it would lend weight to the argument if they cited it properly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                  In fact, a review of reported family law decisions from 2015 showed that in 79% of parenting cases, courts ordered either joint custody (where parents make decisions about their child together) or shared custody (where parents make decisions together and the child spends at least 40% of the time with each parent.

                  I wish they cited how they came up with this "review of reported" case law. Who did it? Not that I don't believe it but, it would lend weight to the argument if they cited it properly.
                  It would be interesting to get some good statistics in general. How many kids have equal parenting (as a %), how many have shared (20%-49%), how many years into the relationship do parents split, how many live with step siblings etc. Is this hard to get?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tayken... well, not really Tayken, the report View Post
                    In fact, a review of reported family law decisions from 2015 showed that in 79% of parenting cases, courts ordered either joint custody (where parents make decisions about their child together) or shared custody (where parents make decisions together and the child spends at least 40% of the time with each parent.

                    I remember this statistic! I already commented on it. It takes two completely different things and mushes them together. I'll use a different analogy this time...




                    Originally posted by fake report
                    In fact, a review of the withdrawal method of birth control shows that in 79% of cases either there was no pregnancy or the woman got an abortion and so also didn't give birth. Therefore, withdrawal is a very effective form of birth control


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Now I remember... Its a bogus stat. Thanks Janus.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                        This means it is responsible for divorces and
                        matters related to divorce – including child support, spousal support and parenting (or custody and access)
                        Why is child support the first item on the list?

                        I'm not sure who you are quoting here, but I think the logic is that the children are the most important part of the process. So, first, make sure they are getting the financial support they need, wherever they happen to be right now. Then take more time to make sure they are being parented in their best interests (custody and access). Lastly, see if spousal support is relevant.



                        It's also easier, I think. What are the access time arrangements right now? What are the parties' incomes right now? CS only needs those two bits of information, which should be easy to come by. Custody and access, and equalization and spousal support can involve lots of supporting documentation and arguments to get through.

                        Comment

                        Our Divorce Forums
                        Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                        Working...
                        X