When Judy Sheindlin was on Larry King Live last week, the issue of joint custody came up. Here is an excerpt from the interview:
SHEINDLIN ("Judge Judy"): I was a lawyer in the family court for ten years. I worked for the corporation counsel's office of the City of New York
I remember the first day that I took the bench. It was in the Bronx and the court officers, if was pretty formal back then, court officer said, you know, say "All rise" and I stood up because I was accustomed to they say "All rise." We stood and finally the court officer said "You can sit down now, judge. They're standing for you. You can sit down." So, even when you have experience you need time to get comfortable in your chair.
KING: I had a judge who became a federal judge told me once that the hardest thing to decide was custody cases. First he had no experience. Who has experience with custody cases? He's been happily married, has children. Who gets whom? Isn't that the hardest to give a child from one parent to another?
SHEINDLIN: Yes. Sometimes it's relatively easy because the choices are clear but I've always thought in this country we do a terrible disservice to fathers. You know there was a time many years ago when we had what we called the Tender Years Doctrine, which meant children of tender years, young children, always went to their mother.
And then all of the courts in this country said that's not fair. We have to be equal. So, on the books there is a law that says no one parent is favored over the other, now that's honored more in the breach than it is honored in actuality. And, I have been a proponent for many years of there being a presumption in this country for joint custody of children. That's where courts should start.
KING: That's where you begin?
SHEINDLIN: That's where you begin and if you're going to deviate from that, you have to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is some valid reason why you're going to deviate from that because one parent is crazy, one parent has a drug problem, an alcohol problem, something's wrong.
But that should be the standard joint custody because children are entitled to be raised by two parents even if the parents don't get along anymore. I mean I think it's horrendous when one parent picks up and moves out of the state or moves 250 miles away and some judge in the family court, the domestic relations court usually if it's the mother who has moved away says, "Well, we'll have a hearing to determine whether it was the right thing."
No, no, no, no, no. You can't say to people who you've lulled into this sense of I'm equal, you're an equal father. You can take off paternity leave. We expect you to participate in the rearing of your children, to go to open school night, to be out there to play with them. Very often there are two people working in the household. They divide authority and you're equal except when there's a divorce.
And then, how often, Larry, I ask you the question, do you hear it quoted in the paper "He lost custody of his children"? You don't hear that. You hear "She lost custody. There must be something wrong with her."
Well I think that that has to change in this country because it was my experience in the family court, and I left the family court ten years ago, but even my experience on the television courtroom suggests to me that there are as wonderful a group of fathers out there as a group of mothers and it's about time that this country recognize that in not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.
I remember the first day that I took the bench. It was in the Bronx and the court officers, if was pretty formal back then, court officer said, you know, say "All rise" and I stood up because I was accustomed to they say "All rise." We stood and finally the court officer said "You can sit down now, judge. They're standing for you. You can sit down." So, even when you have experience you need time to get comfortable in your chair.
KING: I had a judge who became a federal judge told me once that the hardest thing to decide was custody cases. First he had no experience. Who has experience with custody cases? He's been happily married, has children. Who gets whom? Isn't that the hardest to give a child from one parent to another?
SHEINDLIN: Yes. Sometimes it's relatively easy because the choices are clear but I've always thought in this country we do a terrible disservice to fathers. You know there was a time many years ago when we had what we called the Tender Years Doctrine, which meant children of tender years, young children, always went to their mother.
And then all of the courts in this country said that's not fair. We have to be equal. So, on the books there is a law that says no one parent is favored over the other, now that's honored more in the breach than it is honored in actuality. And, I have been a proponent for many years of there being a presumption in this country for joint custody of children. That's where courts should start.
KING: That's where you begin?
SHEINDLIN: That's where you begin and if you're going to deviate from that, you have to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is some valid reason why you're going to deviate from that because one parent is crazy, one parent has a drug problem, an alcohol problem, something's wrong.
But that should be the standard joint custody because children are entitled to be raised by two parents even if the parents don't get along anymore. I mean I think it's horrendous when one parent picks up and moves out of the state or moves 250 miles away and some judge in the family court, the domestic relations court usually if it's the mother who has moved away says, "Well, we'll have a hearing to determine whether it was the right thing."
No, no, no, no, no. You can't say to people who you've lulled into this sense of I'm equal, you're an equal father. You can take off paternity leave. We expect you to participate in the rearing of your children, to go to open school night, to be out there to play with them. Very often there are two people working in the household. They divide authority and you're equal except when there's a divorce.
And then, how often, Larry, I ask you the question, do you hear it quoted in the paper "He lost custody of his children"? You don't hear that. You hear "She lost custody. There must be something wrong with her."
Well I think that that has to change in this country because it was my experience in the family court, and I left the family court ten years ago, but even my experience on the television courtroom suggests to me that there are as wonderful a group of fathers out there as a group of mothers and it's about time that this country recognize that in not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.
Judge Judy Sheindlin on Custody
"Most state laws require that courts treat
mothers and fathers equally when it comes to matters of child custody. When I
presided as a judge in Manhattan
Judge Judy Weighs In On False AllegationsJudy Judge hears case in which mother accuses father of domestic violence after their relationship sours. Judge Judy scolds mother for using false allegations of domestic violence as a weapon instead of a shield. — with David William Farmerand 31 others.
+Fathers Rights +GP7A Father's Rights Attorneys (Referral and Intake Center) +Fathers4JusticeUSA +Father's Rights +Fathers4Justice +Fathers Rights +Protecting Fathers' Rights +Children's Rights Florida +FamilyLawInjustice XY +Fix Family Courts +April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation +Fathers4Justice +American Fathers Liberation Army
Mio Padre originally shared:
Mio Padre originally shared:
WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL ISSUE?
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?