I heard this on the radio this morning and was, honestly, stunned. A California Supreme Court ruled overwealmingly (6-1) that the best interests of children are served by insisting that divorced, competent parents must live close enough to make visitation possible?
Predictably, a local women's organization finds this apalling and "dangerous" for children. I'd like to hear the logic behind *that* one.
Obviously I think it's a huge victory for children of divorced families. I still can't believe it.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Not really.
If the parent cares not enough to visit, then how is forcing the parent to live closer to the child going to improve anything?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I would think that would be covered by "competent" parents.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I think I can sort of see both sides; I think it has a lot to do with the parents in each case. Sometimes, unfortunately, a move is necessary. I'm divorced and remarried, and after my husband (who's college educated) was out of work for almost a year we finally had to move to another state where he had found a job. Thankfully, it's close enough that we can still do regular visitation. However, if we had to move farther away and the court prevented it, I'd be mad in my case. My ex has served jail time for not paying support and is still behind. He sees the kids 2 times a month and doesn't call them in between. I think that's where the issue can get really sticky - to me he's not a competant parent, but would the courts see it that way?
space opera
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I think that's a horrid idea because of the fact that so many marriages end because of abuse, and restraining orders not only don't work enough, but when spouses are close to each other and maybe one or the other or both have had a bit to drink, why they're right close and by golly "I'm gonna go give him/her a piece of my mind!" Next thing you know the kids are thrown in the mix. No, having this requirement is the worst possible thing for divorcees, especially in cases of physical abuse, but also to divorces in general. I have never heard of a happy divorce.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
COMPETENT.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Seriously, guys, think about the order for the majority of cases, not the exceptions. It's going to be applying existing means of legal analysis and existing legal rules to a new requirement. If there's a problem that will be caused by abusive parents, it already exists in the current system and should be changed.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I don't think my case is an exception. Like I said, how do they decide what "competent" is? Is it just someone who doesn't hit their kids and makes sure they have food? In that case, my ex qualifies. But you can't tell me that someone who isn't responsible enough to help out financially with their kids and who doesn't bother to call their children should be the basis for letting the competent, involved, custodial parent not move. Like I said, sticky.
space opera
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I think we all have concerns about the implementation and/or details of the ruling, but I certainly support the spirit. Anything that means fathers get less screwed over (and mothers, but fathers are the big losers in most custody cases) is a good thing.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I'm a divorced parent also. My ex-husband lives in Florida while we live in Washington State. Legally we have joint custody. He is not an incompetent parent, just indifferent. He does not call, ever. We get cards from him twice a year; for Christmas and for my son's birthday. He has always paid child support.
I would be hopping mad if the court in Alaska (where we lived when we were married) had said we *had* to stay in Alaska. No question about it. I'd be seriously ticked and feel like the court had *no* right to tell me where I can and cannot live.
That said, however, it touches me greatly that the Supreme Court recognizes that it is better for children to have *both* parents in their lives, where both parents are competent. And it is willing to smack parents around enough to insist that *they* recognize it also.
One thing I've learned from being a divorced mother is that almost all of the decisions I made about my divorce and where we would live were about *my* comfort. I'm a good mom and I take care of my kids, but I'm also very capable of total self-centricity. My outlook was that it was better for my son if I lived some place that made me happy (anywhere but Alaska). My happiness does not make up for a lost father.
It's cool that the Supreme Court in California also recognises that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I can’t read the link, and I’m curious about the details. How are they defining “close enough to make visitation possible”? If the parents can afford to fly frequently, just about anywhere in the US (or even the world) could fit that description. And how does the ruling translate between “the best interests of children are served by . . .” and making something (what?) a requirement?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't see the article (I don't feel like signing up for another site), but I found another link.
First off, I live less than 5 miles from my ex. One of the reasons why I am not willing to move is that I think it is important that my kids be able to see their dad frequently. So for me, this ruling is moot.
OTOH, a relative of mine has a child from his very brief first marriage. He and his ex have not lived together since before their son (now 4) was born. She left my relative and moved back in with her parents. They live in a small community, and the odds of my relative finding work there are very small. He does his best to find jobs in neighboring states (currently he's about 8 hours away, and last year it was 10) and visits as often as he can. (Every month or two, generally.)
What if it had been the other way around? If she (the custodial parent) had needed to move to get a better job? And what about a couple that wishes to marry, each of whom has custody of children from a previous marriage, and live in different places?
I think this ruling is a bad idea -- and counter to laws on the books in California. I would support it if it were seen as a GUIDELINE, that courts should discourage the custodial parent from moving (reduce child support, maybe). But taking away the kids if the custodial parent moves? How does that help them?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Space Opera, I think it really depends upon the judge.
Slightly related, but maybe not: My son wanted to change his last name when I re-married. He didn't want to be the only Downs in a Rader family. We asked my ex shortly after the wedding, and he said No, we had to wait until Christian was 12. Two years later, it was still a sore point for Christian, so I went to the local county court and petitioned to have his name legally changed. When I talked to the judge, I told him the circumstances, and said that this was Christian's preference. He was 9, and his father was not a part of his life in any significant way. Yes, he pays child support, but it was automatically garnished from his social security check. The judge asked why we did not obtain permission from the father, and I said it was because I was afraid he'd say No.
The judge ruled for the name change.
I suspect that if you could show that the father of your children was not consistently part of their lives and, most importantly, did not pay child support, the judge would quite likely rule in your favor for a move. (Especially if that move was financially motivated.)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
You brought up some excellant points, and I agree with you. I definately hope that a judge would look at the other parent's involvement with the kids in this situation. I don't honestly know how far non-payment of child support would go before a judge, however. Where we live, support and visitation are two different issues. No matter if the parent hasn't paid child support in years, a judge will not even consider that it has bearing on any kind of visitation issue. I know they do that for very good reasons, but I would hope that in this case a judge would look at it as well.
space opera
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
It could help in safety; I think it sounds like what they were actually doing is just clarifying that whatever the custodial situation, the courts will protect the children's best interest. My cousin recently divorced a woman who has proven to be extremely unstable. She can act normal enough for the courts, but he doesn't want her to be the prime influence on their daughter's personality as she grows up. Now he can rest easy she won't be given permission to take the girl away.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Is marriage and the raising of children a private matter or a public (state) matter? Since I believe marriage is private, and should not be a state matter, I think it's a horrible court decision that is ripe for abuse. It expands on the principle that the state knows best how to raise children and infringes on an individuals constitutional right to move freely as they please, unless they have committed a crime. I also think it will probably encourage more abortions. I also think it *erodes* the ability of step-parents to step in and fill the role of parent, if need be.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That came off a little more strongly worded than I should have written it. After some reflection, let's just say that I have a lot of misgivings about this ruling.
[ April 30, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, if the matter could be settled privately, the court wouldn't be involved. But at the point this dispute takes place, the matter is a dispute between two people with different ideas of what constitutes the correct private action. It's the quintessential circumstance for civil law.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Stormy, in my experience (bearing in mind that I've co-facilitated a step-family support group for the past 3 years), step-parents don't ever replace bio parents in a child's mind. A very common mistake is for step-parents to think they can, and so take on a heavy handed parenting role the child is simply not ready or willing to accept. (The worst situation I've seen is where a bio-parent thrusts the step-parent into that role, "not wanting to be the bad guy". Essentially throwing their new partner under the bus.)
Why do you think this would have an influence on abortions?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
If a parent is unemployed and is offered an excellent job out of state, it seems to me it would be in the best interest of the child for the parent to move and take the job. In today's world, economic welfare is almost as important as social welfare. I think this ruling could be beneficial, but it needs to be considered *only* on a case-by-case basis.
I don't know...I see too many opportunities for abuse with this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But aren't there just as many opportunities for abuse with one parent blackmailing the other with the threat of moving?
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh. The whole thing just seems rather grey, Dags. I definitely don't see it as an unmititaged positive.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
JW, because it makes children more of a potential 'burden'.
Now that I think about it, I think this will make parents with children even less desirable in marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't say it was an unmitigated positive. But it gives a court the chance to rule considering the best interests of the child. The court already makes far more intrusive decisions in divorce cases based on that criteria. I'm glad it's not being artifically excused from this one.
Dagonee Edit: In other words, I'd rather see the gray area handled in a fair procedure with adequate representation and an impartial decision maker than by whichever parent happens to have primary custody.
[ April 30, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I didn't mean to imply that you said it was an unmitigated positive. Pardon.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think this has a lot more potential to harm and be intrusive, than it does ot do good.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No problem. I am going to be a lawyer - I guess I wouldn't be doing that if I didn't have greater faith in the legal system than most people.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*grin* As opposed to trial by combat? I don't know....
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Now that I think about it, I think this will make parents with children even less desirable in marriage.
And personally, I find that a positive possible side-effect.
Yes, I'm remarried. And overall in the very long run, I think that remarriage will be good for my son. But the statistics for second marriages are depressing. My husband had *three* stepfathers by the time he was 8. A great young man we know from church has had *seven* stepfathers, and *four* stepmothers. He turned out okay, but what a zoo his family is! Can you imagine the amount of loss...you just start to get used to a new step-dad, and divorce rears its ugly head once again.
Ugh.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: COMPETENT.
I don't know why, PSI, but that made me laugh. "Hi, I'm Reading Comprehension. Do you know me?"
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'd like to hear the logic behind *that* one.