NOW - NEW YORK STATE OPPOSE MEMO
S-3268 (DeFrancisco) -
“Parenting Time” to Replace “Visitation” Terminology And Proportional Child Support Mandate
|
Search Site With  |
|
|
|
A case for “primary caregiver presumption.” The National Organization
for Women-New York State has always favored a primary caregiver (usually the
mother) presumption to ensure stability and continuity of care for children.
If the father has not been involved in a major way in the lives of the children
during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce?
The term “parenting time” does not make a parent: The term “parenting
time” suggests that all non-custodial parents take an active, positive
role in their children’s lives. Although some do, this language clouds
the fact that many parents choose not to exercise their visitation rights;
choose not to be involved in their children’s lives. A change in terminology
does nothing to enforce parental responsibility or involvement, nor does it
guaranty continued relationships between parent and child.
The current terminology and current legal system does nothing to limit
access for parents who want to take an active role in their child’s life. Joint
custody or shared parenting establishes rights without responsibilities. Just
as there is no way under current law to enforce visitation, there is nothing
in this legislation which enforces compliance with a “shared parenting
plan”. There are no penalties for failure to comply.
Let us learn from the experience of others. In California, one of the first
states to mandate joint custody, a report prepared fifteen years after divorce
reform legislation, found in joint and sole custody arrangements followed up
two and three years after the initial filing that the children’s contact
with their parents varied considerably across custody types. One-third of joint-physical
custody arrangements were indistinguishable in sole custody –visitation
arrangements in the same population. “There is evidence that under appropriate
circumstances parents and children benefit under joint custody arrangements
after divorce. There are, however, critical differences between voluntary joint
custody arrangements and court-imposed joint custody over the reluctance of
one parent” This concern extended to mediation-influenced joint custody.
After seeing the harm wrought by court-ordered joint custody, such as, among
other things, children attending two different schools, California ended its
official bias in favor of joint custody awards on January 1, 1989, stating
that “Proponents of joint custody argue that court-imposed joint custody
encourages battling parents to ‘work things out between themselves’,
but this assumption is based more on wishful thinking than reality”
Wrongly formulated legislation apportions child support based on the
percentage of time the child spends with each parent. The Hon. Judith M. Reichler, former
support magistrate, (formerly known as hearing examiner) in New York County,
served on the committee to develop child support guidelines. In testimony she
presented to the New York State Bar Association on January 27, 2006 she stated
the following: “It is simply more expensive to have joint physical custody
because, among other things, of the necessity for duplication of certain household
costs in each parent’s home.” She went on to say that a proportional
offset method of calculating child support has the potential of depriving children
of much needed support. The intent of the sponsors of the child support guidelines
was to protect children from unfairly bearing the economic burden of parental
separation and allowing them to share in the economic status of both their
parents.
Proposed legislation that mandates shared parenting/joint custody is in the
best interests of fathers; certainly not in the best interests of children.
Marcia A. Pappas, President, NOW-NYS, Inc.
Gloria Jacobs, Esq., Chair, Domestic Relations Law Task Force
|
