Shared Parenting Bill Scheduled for Public Hearing in Washington State

Having lived in Washington State I know they are typically WAY over the top in protecting us from ourselves and helping people to NOT be accountable for their actions and themselves.
Is the paragraph saying “it’s better for the kids to keep a visitation schedule on track unless the child is in harm’s way”? I think they are closing one more loop-hole for the idiot parent that says “It’s your fault for not telling me it was better for the kid to keep the schedule. How was I supposed to know?”

Yuck… It is so upsetting to me that there needs to be such laws to ‘make’ parents behave and work together to provide for and do what is in the best interest of their children. Even the law that I “like” just seems like a sad comment on the state of so many parents, and the entire process. One would think that every situation is veiwed/decided to provide for the best interest of the child, the best mediation processing of the parents, and for the benefit of our future society…. without bias and prejudgment. However, this is far from the case or we wouldn’t need all of these laws to make society and parents do what they should be doing for the sake of their children anyway.
Each situation is so very different that laws just can not provide for all of human nature. But, at the same time, if a law is needed to insure that each situation is dealt with as an individual case, then.. well… so be it.
Randi, Single 2 Mother
http://www.single2mother.org

These bills in Washington have grown out of a need to equalize how parents and children are treated post divorce.

As it stands in Washington now, if both parents can not agree on shared parenting, then custody is awarded to one parent. In an overwhelming number of cases, it is the mother.

Here is a scenario to think about. Two loving parents who decide it is in the best interest of the family to divorce. No issues of abuse in the family – a pretty common American family.

Typically, a power struggle ensues over custody of the child, with a winner take all in the Courts of Washington. If you are a woman, changes are pretty good that you will come out with custody of the child.

For the father, who has done nothing but get a divorce with a former spouse, he loses valuable contact with a child, and a child, loses valuable contact with a parent. In most cases, it either severs or severely injures the parent-child bond.

Anyone can imagine the pain of losing regular access to a child.

We do have the possibility for shared parenting in the State now, but only if both parents agree. So, one parent refuses shared parenting, and if they get custody, they are actually awarded for not looking out for the best interest of the child.

We all agree there are no winners in divorce, but we don’t have to beat one parent and the child down after a divorce. The bond between both parents is an important part of the life of a child, and needs to be protected at all costs.

Let the courts oversee the issues between the parents if necesary though mediation, and leave the kids out of it and allow them to be kids, with two nurturing parents contributing substantially to their growth.

Being the nonresidential parent with a less-than-cooperative former spouse, I can say without a doubt that a shared parenting law needs to be enacted in Washington state.

Under our current system, the question of what is best for a child is never actually asked by the court. The system assumes living with mom is generally best for a child. That’s not necessarily the case.

In Washington, it is literally up to a father to prove a mother is unfit to gain custody, all other factors being equal. And then if a mother has custody but fails to follow parenting plans detailing telephonic and physical interaction between a child and the “other parent,” the courts won’t do anything about it.

Statistics clearly show children growing up in a shared-parenting environment with equal access to both biological parents fair far better academically, socially and physically.

S.B. 5234 doesn’t provide for equal access, but it is a step in the right direction.

In regards to your comment that if this were the case, why would we need laws? Because you obviously have not had this battle….I will answer simply…. The reason is our CORRUPT judicial system and alientating behaviors of “the other” parent. That is why.

I hope you NEVER have to face “The System”.

What about millions of Fathers who are MIA because of the family court system? Political figures often discuss the welfare of our children but never discuss the problem regarding our family court system, unfair visitation laws and how those laws effective fathers who want to be part of their children’s lives.

There is a Child Support Enforcement agency in every state but not a Visitation/Parenting Time Enforcement Agency. Why?? This needs to be an issue addressed at the federal level and not decided by the states because the system at the state level is not working. Most states call the time Fathers spend with their children as “Visitation” instead of calling it what it is “Parenting time”. Parenting time is a time to be a parent to your child. Visitation is what the family court force on fathers, as they want fathers to become an occasional visitor. Family courts wants fathers to settle for becoming a ‘Disney Dad,’ one whose role is nothing more than outings to theme parks once or twice a month. Why can’t the family courts grant time to fathers in a frequency, duration, and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong and loving relationship between the child and the parent? The standard visitation which is four days a month is not enough time to be an effective parent to your child. The family courts very, very rarely enforce visitation. Here, the prejudice is against fathers and their parental rights. The congress refuses to acknowledge the injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of denying the love and companionship between a father and their child.

Fathers are systematically eliminated from their children’s lives. Father’s parental rights are systematically terminated by family court judges who have a deep seated gender bias against fathers. Termination of parental rights is both total and irrevocable. Termination of parental rights is the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case. The primary casualties in our Domestic Relations courts are our children.

Courts are supposed to approach cases of child custody, support payments, and visitation rights in a gender-neutral posture. It sounds fair, and it is fair. But it is a myth. Judges are not enforcing these gender laws fairly, and few seem to care. Unless you have been forcefully removed from the everyday upbringing of your child by the Court, you can not fathom the emotional distress. To discriminate against fathers because of their gender in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of their skin color. With sole or primary custody going to the mother in roughly 90% of cases, claiming custody is not based on gender would be like claiming hiring is not based on race if 90% of a particular race, though equally qualified, was unable to obtain employment. This was missing from the Obama’s Father’s day speech. What about millions of Fathers who are MIA because of the family court system?