July 6, 2010
“I was very upset,” said Brian Ayers, 30. “I thought, in this country, you wouldn”t have to necessarily fight to spend time with your own child.”” That struggle, according to fathers” groups, is a product of a Massachusetts probate system that they say tilts physical custody of children to the mothers. As a result, they are championing a pending House bill that would begin each custody case with a presumption that fathers and mothers are entitled to equal amounts of time with their children. “What we have right now is essentially a maternal veto”” over joint physical custody, said Ned Holstein, executive director of Fathers & Families,
a national advocacy group based in Massachusetts. “We don”t understand why mom should have a veto over what is in the best interests of children.”” Brian MacQuarrie’s new story Fathers back bill on rights of parents, Say judges must consider joint physical custody (Boston Globe, 7/5/10) focuses on HB 1400, Fathers & Families’ Shared Parenting Bill currently before the Massachusetts Joint Judiciary Committee. MacQuarrie details the problems faced by F & F supporter Brian Ayers, who wants to play a meaningful role in his little son’s life but has been relegated to an every-other-weekend dad by the family court system. We suggest that you thoughtfully and responsibly:
1) Write a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe by clicking letter@globe.com or using their online form here. The shorter the letter, the better chance it has of being published. 2) Comment on the story on the Globe website by clicking here. 3) Commend reporter Brian MacQuarrie for bringing attention to this important issue–his email is macquarrie@globe.com.
MacQuarrie writes that “organizations that deal with women”s and children”s issues say there is no such thing as a maternal veto.” Nancy Scannell of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children says the process already prefers joint physical custody. Yet MacQuarrie also tells us:
[A] 1999 doctoral thesis by Joseph McNabb, the president of Laboure College in Dorchester, found that joint physical custody was awarded at Worcester Probate and Family Court only 8 percent of the time in 501 cases in 1993. Mothers obtained sole physical custody 83.2 percent of the time, and fathers received sole physical custody in 8.8 percent of the cases, according to the study.
If Massachusetts courts award joint physical custody less than 10% of the time and custody to the father less than 10% of the time, it seems pretty clear we do have a “maternal veto”–moms who want sole custody are very likely to get it, and dads who want joint physical custody rarely get it. According to MacQuarrie, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children opposes the bill. This is terribly misguided–abuse is less likely to occur when both parents are involved in the kids’ lives, as opposed to when dad (or mom) is excluded. And since most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by moms, not dads, there’s no basis for claiming the sole custody to mom norm protects children from abuse. The National Organization for Women, which has fought tooth and nail since 1980 to protect sole custody for moms, also opposes HB 1400. MacQuarrie writes:
James Edwards, a family-law attorney who represents the mother of Ayers”s child, said the custody settlement signed by both parents is relatively generous in the parenting time granted to the father. Ayers cares for his son every other weekend and has other sleepovers and meals built into the agreement. But to Ayers, who said he could not afford to go to trial to seek equal time with his son, such a right should be the norm unless evidence shows otherwise… But in this case, Edwards said, the mother”s argument for sole physical custody was aided by the child”s status as a newborn, her occupation as a nurse, and third-shift work that enabled her to care for the baby during the day. Ayers, however, insisted he has been treated unfairly.
The primary role of mothers’ attorneys in child custody cases is often to minimize the father’s role in his children’s lives, and this case is no exception. But the excuse put forward by the mother and her attorney is a common tactic–the child is very young, so he belongs with mom. This is nonsense–I was the primary caregiver for my baby daughter from the time she was 6 weeks old and nothing I’ve ever done in my life came as naturally to me. Dads are perfectly capable of caring for infants–all they need is the chance. It’s nice that the mother’s third-shift work allows for her to be with the baby during the day, but since she apparently works full-time, it’s hard to see why there isn’t plenty of time when Ayers could provide primary care for the little boy, too. Ayers works two jobs because of the onerous child support he’s charged with paying—under a more child-friendly system, Ayers’s son would have more time with dad, and dad wouldn’t be forced to work the second job. Read the full article here.