[AKidsRight.Org] Politics & Reform: How do we respond to folks that say NO!

webmaster@AKidsRight.Org

Good People & People of Faith:

This message contains info on:

1. Senator Hillary R. Clinton - front runner for US President ('08)
2. British Gov't Minister on equal parenting - children are not property!
3. South Dakota Shared Parenting Bill fails - would harm children!
4. Michigan 'shared parenting' - NOW says bad idea!
5. Gay Rights/Family Rights - Canadian analysis & organizational challenge.

Some of the view below present 'contrary' opinions about reform.  How
do we respond with a positive message and not just attacking the
messenger?  Please send in how you think you would answer some of
these one-liners if a reporter had then asked you for a response.  We
will share them with folks on the list.  If you agree, let us know.

1. Senator Hillary R. Clinton - front runner for US President ('08)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Even before 2008, Sen. Clinton will be running for reelection as New
York State Senator next year, 2006.  We are trying to encourage her
to talk to parents and to call for Congressional Hearings into Family
Rights protection. -Ed.]

Submitted by: WaynrDude@aol.com
 From: http://www.GrassFire.Org/

Former Clinton strategist Dick Morris is now predicting that Hillary
Clinton will win the Democratic nomination in 2008 AND will be
elected President.

Calling Hillary the "toughest politician I've ever met in American
politics," Morris boldly stated that "there is no way that [Hillary]
is not going to win [the Democratic] nomination."  He added, "She has
a superb chance of winning the election."

2. British Gov't Minister on equal parenting - children are not property!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Zorro" <kidshelp@cogeco.ca>

> Women's minister Patricia Hewitt explained why the Government would
> not comply with the protesters' key demand for a 50-50 share of
> access between mother and father.  "Children are not property to be
> divided 50-50 like the goods divided between a couple on divorce,"
> she said.  "What we have recently put forward are proposals that
> will give children much more time with both their parents  the
> non-resident parent as well as the resident parent."

3. South Dakota Shared Parenting Bill fails - would harm children!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: "Nick Kovats"  <f4k@rogers.com>

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10935350.htm
ASSOCIATED  PRESS - SOUTH DAKOTA, Fri, Feb. 18, 2005
By JOE KAFKA -  AP

PIERRE, S.D. - A bill seeking to foster shared physical custody of
children in divorce cases was rejected 9-4 Friday by the House
Judiciary Committee when opponents said such a law would cause
needless court battles and harm children.

Supporters of SB123 argued that judges tend to favor women in custody
cases and that many fathers in those instances find it difficult to
stay connected with their children.  In cases of joint legal custody,
the legislation said judges could order joint physical custody, too,
if either parent had requested it.  Opponents said judges already can
do that.

Both sides agreed children do best when estranged parents are civil
to each other and actively involved in their children's lives.
Children of divorce are happier and better off when both parents help
raise them, said John Grosz of Sioux Falls, president of the South
Dakota Coalition for Shared Parenting.

"One parent should not be able to gain full custody of the children
simply because they do not agree to a shared parenting arrangement
because they know statistically they will gain full custody by
disagreeing to joint physical custody," he said. Grosz was among
several parents who spoke in favor of SB123.

Speaking against the bill, Sioux Falls lawyer Cathy  Piersol said 
judges already may award joint physical custody of children.  She said
part of the bill requiring judges to specify why they have denied 
joint custody would cause parents to pay increased costs for lawyers
and  home-study experts because custody hearings would have to be held
in every  case.

The measure is so open-ended that it would allow parents to
repeatedly ask for joint physical custody, Piersol said. She said an
average custody case can cost from $5,000 to $20,000.

"This legislation is a tool for mischief," she said. "The person who
suffers is the child. It's absolutely proven that every child of
divorce ... has two great fears. One of them is that they have caused
this divorce. The second one is the fear of abandonment."

State law already provides for joint legal custody because it creates
an atmosphere that comes closest to duplicating a natural home if the
parents had not divorced, Piersol said.

Bouncing children from one parent's home to the next is not generally
a good idea, she added. "Children need structure."  The State Bar and
Trial Lawyers Association also objected.  "It's a recipe for trouble
and disaster at the expense of the children," said Roger
Tellinghuisen, representing trial lawyers.

If both parents are fit, they are equally entitled to custody, said
Rep. Joni Cutler, R-Sioux Falls, who voted against the bill.  She
said judges consider what is best for children before awarding
physical custody.

Shuffling children between homes of parents with shared physical
custody can confuse children, Cutler said. "Children are put in a
horrible situation that causes fear and anxiety and depression when
they don't know who they're supposed to be with, and where they're
grounded at. Where's headquarters?"

One Sioux Falls parent who testified for the bill told of hardship
when a judge allowed his wife to move to Utah with their child. He
rarely has contact with the child anymore, the man said.

However, Cutler, a lawyer, said she was familiar with that case and
that it involved a contentious breakup and hard feelings. She said
the only way the man was allowed to see his daughter while she lived
in Sioux Falls was when the family would meet at the police station.

SB123, offered by Sen. Clarence Kooistra, R-Garretson, had earlier
cleared the state Senate without a dissenting vote.  Kooistra, a
former teacher and school counselor, said he sponsored the bill out
of a firm conviction that children of divorce do much better if fully
connected to both parents. He said Iowa passed a joint physical
custody law last year, and it has worked well.

4. Michigan 'shared parenting' - NOW says bad idea!
--------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: "Jorge E Garcia" <g1garcia3@yahoo.com>

 http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html=20=20

"Father's Rights" Groups: Beware Their Real Agenda

by Gloria Woods,
President, Michigan NOW

"Shared Parental Responsibility." In our work as women's advocates,
how often have we heard custodial moms wish that their children's
father would share the parental responsibility? Unfortunately,
"shared parental responsibility" is the new doublespeak for joint
physical custody by so-called "father's rights" groups.

For example, in Michigan proposed legislation supported by these
groups would impose joint custody on parents who are in conflict over
custody. Most studies report that joint custody works best when both
parents want it and agree to work together.

The Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge
must presume that joint custody is in the "best interests of the
child" and "should be ordered." To make any other decision, a judge
must make findings why joint custody is not in the children's "best
interest." This is a high legal standard that makes it very difficult
for judges to award any other custody arrangement. It is also a
departure from the generally accepted standards determining what's in
the best interest of the child.

Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is
unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and
their children who are trying to leave or have left violent
husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of
divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended
consequences on child support.

Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe
fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are
biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to
parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole
custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as
proof of bias against fathers.

The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually
agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several
studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the
majority of disputed cases.

The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in
conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them
and their children in harm's way.

There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children.
"In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate,
joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight,"
one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily
Journal (December 1988).

In "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint
Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues
compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in
sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in
"entrenched conflict."  This study showed that under these
circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint
custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children
than the sole-custody arrangement.

Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and
their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and
Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the
exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time
for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children."

"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations
lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative," said NOW
Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. "It creates an unparalleled
opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal
agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of
the courts.

"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection
act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees
rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said.

Joining Michigan NOW in opposing this legislation are: antiviolence/
women's shelter groups, the bar association, child psychologists,
social workers, family law experts, judges, lawyers, and even the
Family Forum (a right-wing, "traditional family values" group).

You can check out the supporters of this bill and become familiar
with the groups' real agenda by logging on to the Internet using any
search engine such as Yahoo to search for "fathers' rights," or
connect to: http://www.speakeasy.org/fathersrights/ or
http://web2.airmail.net/fathers4 to learn more about their
activities.

Further information on forced joint custody, including a list of
studies and reports on its dangers, is available from the NOW
Foundation at 202-331-0066.

5. Gay Rights/Family Rights - Canadian analysis
-----------------------------------------------
[This message is a little late, but we are sure Sean would still
like to hear from interested people. -Ed.]
Submitted by: "Sean Cummings" <divorcemanagement@mail.com>

Government will not reform unless there is reason to reform and it
won't be the result of a sudden warm fuzzy feeling of equality,
similar to their stand on same sex marriage. If we are looking at
equal parenting as a fundamental equality issue, we need look no
further than the same sex marriage debate for a template of how
government will respond to a hot button issue.

- in 1999 the Liberals voted to support the traditional definition of
marriage
- since 1999 the Liberals have tried to delay legislation.
- the Liberals have purposefully used the Supreme Court of Canada as
a political tool by bringing the matter to the SCC for a ruling,
rather than take a stand on a controversial topic. They did this
knowing full well that the SCC would rule in favor of SSM, so the
Liberals could say - "we had no choice, the court made us do it".

Now, look at how the issue was raised as a public policy matter in
the first place. There is an effective, well funded and well
organized gay and lesbian rights lobby in Canada and they haven't
been forced to dress in superhero costumes to compel government to
change the law. They did it by conducting fundraising initiatives to
bankroll their organizations. They did it by capacity building -
partnering with similar organizations who share their aims and
objectives. They did it by having a clear and concise set of
strategies that advocates across Canada embraced and committed to.

No, Government will not introduce legislation supporting equal
parenting in this country until they are made to do it.  Reform is
not inevitable on this topic - far from it. It wasn't inevitable on
same sex marriage - reform was forced by a well organized movement,
by the effective use of the courts on charter of rights challenges,
and by consistent and well placed political pressure by very
effective advocates supporting same sex marriage.

Compare the equal parenting movement to that of the gay rights
movement: we are like cavemen who are throwing rocks at the moon
thinking that it is something we can eat in comparison to gay rights
advocates who have landed on the moon and planted their flag... it's
the best analogy I can come up with.

There has been so much talk as of late about negotiating with
ourselves and "what do we do next"... I suggest to everyone that a
perfectly useful example of effective advocacy exists - we need only
adopt what gay rights advocates have been doing for years. Why
reinvent the wheel. Everyone is looking for someone who is going to
be the voice of NCP's, people think that hiring an Executive Director
for an organization is going to somehow miraculously create an
effective movement.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. What is required to make equal
parenting a reality in our lifetime is a steadfast commitment from
everyone in Canada who claims to be an advocate, to working on
advocacy. It's as simple as that. A template for organizational
effectiveness exists, it's results are currently raging away in the
corridors of power, in daily news columns, at community meetings:
same sex marriage is coming to Canada BECAUSE gay rights advocates
made it so.

So, I will simplify this organizational process for everyone: you
want to create an effective lobby? Here's how:

1) Every known organization like FACT, MESA, ECMAS, PCAC, CEPC, etc,
gets on the phone to each other and says to each other - we are going
to work together.

2) Every known organization commits itself entirely to a
collaborative effort.

3) Every known organization commits one or two people to developing a
STRATEGIC PLAN with MEASURABLE objectives.

4) Every known organization's representative takes that strategic
plan back to it's organization and begins to implement it.

5) A strategic plan includes components like fundraising, like
supporting court challenges, like conducting freedom of information
inquiries on issues like how the child support guidelines came into
being, like public awareness, like marketing, like lobbying, the list
goes on.

In other words, MAKE IT HAPPEN. Stop looking at the issue and saying
it is unfair and wishing it would change. Organize, organize,
organize... this isn't rocket science folks, this is grassroots
organization and political action. Use the tools that we have at our
disposal to organize and publicize what we are doing. Commit to
implementing a strategic plan. If no such strategic plan exists, then
create it.

So here, I will put my money where my mouth is. 

I am today PUBLICLY CHALLENGING every single known equal parenting
group in receipt of this email to contact me and I will coordinate
the first step in this organizational process: a meeting by phone of
a representative from every known equal parenting group in Canada. I
will develop a strategic plan with measurable objectives for your
collective discussion and if agreeable, everyone who participates in
that meeting can bring it back to their group to be adopted and put
into action. I will pay for the phone call.

So, call me collect - 403-668-0699. I propose that this be done on
Friday February 25, 2005. I am off that entire day and available that
entire day. Between now and Friday, I will post and broadcast on
Divorce Radio the names of groups who are going to participate in
this process.

Regards,
Sean Cummings

------------
                                   Webmaster
_____________________________________________________________
AKidsRight.Org                    "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
                                   http://www.AKidsRight.Org/

=======================================
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter