Class Action Lawsuit for Equal Custody!

[VeronicaGia]

What is the name of your state? ALL

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133875,00.html

There is more to the story than what is posted below. Go to the link for the whole story. It's about time!

At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The defendants are the individual states.

The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being violated by family courts across the nation.

Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and acts of Congress "to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights."
In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in custody matters.

According to the suits, state practices appear to be "willful, reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers" with a "systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process" of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.

In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.

 

[nextwife]

Amen.

Example: Daddy works his backside off so mom can be a SAHP. She decides to dump him, so the court automatically uses the opportunity dad provided mom to stay home as an excuse to deny him custody and make him a vistor in his child's life (using the rational that mom was the "primary caregiver", which of course she was if dad was the only one working! Doesn't mean that Dad is not just as capable and just as accepted by his kids.). In essence, he gets punished for making it possible for his child to have a SAHM because it is treated by he courts as a sure way to award mom custody and deny it to dad.

Another? An unmarried mom has automatic custody until paternity is established. That creates a precident of Mom being the primary caregiver, which in turn, creates the higher likelihood of Dad never any getting custodyl.

Why should either parent need to prove the other unfit in order to truly share the process of raising their child? They should have shared physical custody unless one is unfit or unavailable. Both male and female parents (unless incapacitated by substance abuse, illness, etc.)are equally endowed with the capability of being caregivers to their child. There is nothing about having a penis that makes men any less capable of parenting. In virtually all the couples I know, the father does pretty much all the same caregiving activities as the mom.

 

[VeronicaGia]

bump bump bump

 

[snostar]

Thanks for posting VG, I'm happy to hear the news, and will definetly be interested in following the progress of the case!

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks for posting VG, I'm happy to hear the news, and will definetly be interested in following the progress of the case!

I also read about this case. I think that it may not go anywhere. They focus highly on "due process", yet there is almost more due process in family court than there is in any other court. Its too bad that we can't actually read the case that was filed rather than a news article about it.

 

[LdiJ]

Another? An unmarried mom has automatic custody until paternity is established. That creates a precident of Mom being the primary caregiver, which in turn, creates the higher likelihood of Dad never any getting custodyl.

That really is a permanently unfixable problem, until there is a medically safe way to determine paternity before birth. There is no doubt who is mom, however until paternity is established its impossible to legally know who is dad. I can't see it ever being constitutional for a court to give someone rights without knowing, legally, that they are dad.

 

[haiku]

That really is a permanently unfixable problem, until there is a medically safe way to determine paternity before birth. There is no doubt who is mom, however until paternity is established its impossible to legally know who is dad. I can't see it ever being constitutional for a court to give someone rights without knowing, legally, that they are dad.

I think the point that was trying to be made was in those particular cases, the primamry caretaker advantage should not automatically apply.

 

[LdiJ]

I think the point that was trying to be made was in those particular cases, the primamry caretaker advantage should not automatically apply.

That's a valid point from the parental point of view. However it would still be traumatic to an infant to have primary custody changed at that point.

 

[karma1]

Huh???

That's a valid point from the parental point of view. However it would still be traumatic to an infant to have primary custody changed at that point.

Might you be so kind as to post some stats for that?

 

[haiku]

That's a valid point from the parental point of view. However it would still be traumatic to an infant to have primary custody changed at that point.

lets not forget though, in cases of separated families, parents and kids must think 'outside the box" of the "normal".

Even if you were to find us a study, that stated this, it really cannot apply in a separate parenting situation.

in a "normal" situation, even if mom is the primary, dad is still there IN THE HOME, at some point in the day with unfettered access, to bond with the baby. A divorce situation prevents that contact.

We need to start thinking that what is "normal" for "divorced " kids is different than what is 'normal" for children in intact families.

 

[VeronicaGia]

Might you be so kind as to post some stats for that?

Where the heck have you been?

 

[VeronicaGia]

I also read about this case. I think that it may not go anywhere. They focus highly on "due process", yet there is almost more due process in family court than there is in any other court. Its too bad that we can't actually read the case that was filed rather than a news article about it.

So you think that as long as a CSE agency mails a paper to a possibly good address, that is due process?

Sorry, due process in my opinion includes being served in some way. Even if it is registered mail with return receipt. Just dropping something in the mail to what may or may not be a valid address is not due process.

Also, when a mother applies for welfare and signs her CS rights over to the state, thereby making any potential father responsible to repay the money, how is that due process? She signed, she should pay, or in the very least, paternity should be established and then he at least gets to make an informed decision and then BOTH people should have to pay the money back. And support should only start on the day paternity is legally established, not years later after mom collected welfare.

 

[nextwife]

I think the point that was trying to be made was in those particular cases, the primamry caretaker advantage should not automatically apply.

Agreed. Dad needs to also have the primary caregiving duties that are part of the bonding process. And the earlier the better.

Status quo, if it is not GOOD status quo does not automatically make it desirable. My daughter's "primary caregiver" the first 25 months of her life was her orphanage. That does NOT make it true that continuing this arrangemnt would have been better for her. And, FYI, she was handed to us with no transition at 2 and was never traumatized and is a happy well adjusted child.

And not having dad and his child involved together in the processes that foster bonding is NOT good status quo.

 

[LdiJ]

lets not forget though, in cases of separated families, parents and kids must think 'outside the box" of the "normal".

Even if you were to find us a study, that stated this, it really cannot apply in a separate parenting situation.

in a "normal" situation, even if mom is the primary, dad is still there IN THE HOME, at some point in the day with unfettered access, to bond with the baby. A divorce situation prevents that contact.

We need to start thinking that what is "normal" for "divorced " kids is different than what is 'normal" for children in intact families.

Actually, that particular quote from me had nothing to do with a divorce situation. One of the other posters made a comment that it was wrong for mom to start out with sole custody in an unwed situation. I responded with a comment regarding the fact that I didn't think that could be changed because of the need to prove paternity. Another responded with a comment that then mom shouldn't get the benefit in court of being primary caregiver (basically since dad had no chance to be until paternity was established), and I responded that I agreed from the parent's perspective, but not from the child's.

 

[nextwife]

MY point was indeed that dad's should be able to begin having their own time with their child as soon as the legal right is established.

It better for a child to begin the bonding process with their dad being the other caregiver as early as possible. Children are very adapdable. Being with dad is no different than parents who leave their kids with Grandma or sis for the day on a regular basis. Baby is quickly familiar with them and grows up fine. Why should dad be entitled to any less?