Category: Blog

January 31, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

This continues my thoughts on Professor Linda Nielsen’s most recent analysis of all 60 studies extant that compare children’s outcomes in sole parental custody (SPC) with those in joint parental custody (JPC).  (SPC refers to either sole or primary custody while JPC refers to arrangements in which each parent has the children at least 35% of the time.)

Interestingly, Nielsen points out that rates of JPC seem to be increasing in a number of jurisdictions. She cites studies of case outcomes in Wisconsin, Washington State, Arizona and internationally in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, two provinces of Canada, and Spain’s Catalan region. 

Her analysis aims to ascertain whether existing studies that find children in JPC doing better on a range of outcomes are actually measuring the effects of JPC or some other variable such as family income or family conflict.  After all, if the JPC families studied tend to be wealthier and/or less conflictual than the SPC families or control groups, then perhaps those factors and not JPC itself are what promote children’s better outcomes. Unsurprisingly, opponents of shared parenting have raised the possibility.

Is it true, as some social scientists have claimed (e.g., Smyth, McIntosh, Emery, & Howarth, 2016), that if JPC children have better outcomes than SPC children, it is probably because JPC parents have far more money and far less conflict?

As to parental conflict, the answer is a strong “no.”

In 14 of the 19 studies that addressed this question, JPC couples did not have significantly less conflict or more cooperative, communicative coparenting relationships than SPC couples (see Nielsen, 2017, for citations to the 19 studies).Compared to SPC couples, in 3 studies JPC couples had less conflict; in one study they had more, and in one study the conflict differences depended on the age of the children. In short, cooperation and low conflict are not likely to account for JPC’s children’s better outcomes.

I appreciate Prof. Nielsen’s academic caution, but, when 15 of 19 studies are of JPC parents with either more conflict or about the same level of conflict as their SPC peers, and yet the kids in JPC arrangements do better, it’s not too much to say that family conflict isn’t an excuse to oppose shared parenting.

Nor are those outcomes explained by the agreeability of the parents at the outset of the divorce process. In other words, it’s theoretically possible that parents who end up with JPC were simply more amenable to it in the first place.  So their conflict levels would tend to be lower and their ability to make shared parenting work would be greater.  Alas for the opponents of shared parenting, that doesn’t fly either.

Are JPC parents a unique group who, unlike SPC parents, agree to their plan “voluntarily” and without being “forced” to agree to share? According to the 7 studies that have specifically addressed this question, the answer is “no” (Nielsen, 2017). The percentage of couples who were initially opposed to JPC at the outset ranged from 30% to 80% of the parents. In each of these studies, however, JPC children had better outcomes than SPC children despite the fact that many of their parents had not agreed to the plan at the time they were separating…

In the 19 studies that considered parental conflict, JPC children had better outcomes on all measures in 9 studies, equal to better outcomes in 5 studies, equal outcomes in 2 studies, and worse outcomes on one measure but equal or better outcomes on other measures in 3 studies. 

In short, opponents of shared parenting can’t look to lower parental conflict or greater cooperation to explain kids’ better outcomes in shared care.

What about family income? It’s well known that affluence tends to benefit kids.  So perhaps kids in JPC just happen to have wealthier parents than SPC children.  Why that would be, I have no idea, but again, it’s a theoretical possibility.  So what does the research tell us?

Twenty-five of the 60 studies that compared children’s outcomes controlled for family income…  In the 25 studies that considered family income, JPC children had better outcomes on all measures in 18 studies, equal to better outcomes in 4 studies, equal outcomes in 1 study, and worse outcomes on one measure but equal or better outcomes on other measures in 2 studies. 

So family income doesn’t explain kids’ better outcomes either.  Nielsen rhetorically asks why it should be that income doesn’t affect those outcomes and promises a thorough review of the literature on that question in a paper that’s to be published sometime this year.  Still, she offers a teaser:

In a Swedish study with 391 JPC families and 654 SPC families, the 10 to 18 year-olds with the wealthier and most well-educated parents were more stressed and more anxious than children with less wealth, less educated parents (Fransson, Turunen, Hjern, Östberg, & Bergström, 2016). Moreover, having a parent with a graduate degree was more closely linked to children’s stress and anxiety than was the physical custody plan. The researchers speculated that highly educated, higher income parents might put more academic and social demands on their children, which, in turn, increases children’s stress and anxiety.

Similarly, in a French study with 91 children living in JPC, 34 living with their fathers and 328 with their mothers and 1,449 living in intact families, wealthier children were no less likely than less wealthy children to be caught in the middle of their parents’ arguments (Barumandzadah, Lebrun, Barumandzadah, & Poussin, 2016). SPC children were also just as likely as JPC children to be caught in the middle of their parents’ arguments. Money did not buy happiness in the sense that wealthier children were not more protected from their parents’ conflicts.

It’s beginning to look like children’s well-being depends on the quality of their relationships with their parents.  Needless to say, joint parenting allows good relationships to continue post-divorce and offers the possibility for weaker ones to strengthen. 

It’s true, for example, that fathers whose relationships with their kids may be somewhat remote due to their emphasis on supporting their families tend, with significant parenting time following divorce, to become more complete parents.  It’s also true that male parents tend to take a back seat to their female partners in parenting when the two are together. That may well be a result of hormonal factors.  But those same factors lead to men stepping into the breach when Mom either can’t or won’t do the main work of parenting.

Divorce with shared parenting looks like a modern-day version of that very thing, i.e. the female not doing the parenting for a time.  The male brain is constructed to step in during his parenting time and that’s exactly what many fathers do.  Only after divorce can they become fully parental because they’re wired that way. So it may be that shared parenting is unintentionally designed to play on fathers’ tendency to take on a full parenting role when Mom’s not there to do the whole job.

Such at any rate is my theory on that subject.  Meanwhile, opponents of shared parenting have theorized that conflict and income may explain children’s better outcomes in JPC than SPC.  Existing science proves them wrong.  They should be careful; that’s getting to be a habit. 

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#sharedparenting, #soleparenting, #children’sbestinterests

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

January 29, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

Professor Linda Nielsen has just published an up-to-date summary of studies of children’s outcomes in shared parenting vs. sole parenting arrangements. She’s done this before, but, since her last effort, more studies have been completed, so she’s updating her previous findings. Her article appears in the Journal of Child Custody and analyzes 60 studies. Here is the abstract of the article.

Is joint physical custody (JPC) linked to any better or worse outcomes for children than sole physical custody (SPC) after considering family income and parental conflict? In the 60 studies published in English in academic journals or in government reports, 34 studies found that JPC children had better outcomes on all of the measures of behavioral, emotional, physical, and academic well-being and relationships with parents and grandparents. In 14 studies, JPC children had equal outcomes on some measures and better outcomes on others compared to SPC children. In 6 studies JPC and SPC children were equal on all measures. In 6 studies, JPC children were worse on one of the measures than SPC children, but equal or better on all other measures. In the 25 studies that considered family income, JPC children had better outcomes on all measures in 18 studies, equal to better outcomes in 4 studies, equal outcomes in 1 study, and worse outcomes on one measure but equal or better outcomes on other measures in 2 studies. In the 19 studies that included parental conflict, JPC children had better outcomes on all measures in 9 studies, equal to better outcomes in 5 studies, equal outcomes in 2 studies, and worse outcomes on one measure but equal or better outcomes on other measures in 3 studies. In sum, independent of family income or parental conflict, JPC is generally linked to better outcomes for children.

And here is her conclusion:

As the studies summarized in this article demonstrate, JPC is linked to better outcomes than SPC for children, independent of family income or the level of conflict between parents. This is not to say that children do not benefit in any way from living in higher income families or from having parents with low conflict, cooperative coparenting relationships. What these studies do mean is that the better outcomes for JPC children should not be attributed to higher family incomes or to low conflict between their parents. Moreover, all 30 studies that assessed children’s relationships with their parents and other relatives found better outcomes for the JPC children. Given this, it is highly likely that family income and parental conflict are less closely linked to children’s well-being than the quality of their relationships with their parents, stepparents, and grandparents. As researchers continue to explore the factors that might explain children’s better outcomes in JPC families, it is clear that shared parenting families are on the rise and that children are benefitting from this new family form.

I’ll get into her analysis in more detail next time, but for now it should be apparent that children with parental relationships that allow them to spend at least 35% of their time with each parent tend to do better on a range of emotional, psychological, physical and cognitive measures than kids in sole parental care (SPC). Now, as with so much else in social science, it’s not yet possible to conclude that shared parenting causes those better outcomes. But when variables like parental conflict and family income are considered and the results still hold, it becomes ever harder to avoid that very conclusion. At the very least, we should shift the “burden of proof” to those who oppose shared parenting to provide evidence as compelling as that in favor of shared parenting or more so. For years now, opponents of shared parenting have sniped at the science demonstrating the connection between shared parenting and better children’s welfare. That’s all very well, but they should apply the same stringent standards to that which they promote, i.e. sole maternal care. Needless to say they never produce the goods because the goods don’t exist. To my knowledge, there is not one reliable study demonstrating overall better results for kids in sole care. Certainly none of the studies analyzed by Nielsen does so.

I’ll get more specific next time.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#sharedparenting, #solecustody, #Dr.LindaNielsen

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

January 28, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

Many times we’ve stared aghast at the astonishing fees accumulated by lawyers in child custody cases. Just two weeks ago I reported on an Australian judge who excoriated lawyers for making custody and parenting time cases an excuse to protract litigation and increase fees beyond anything remotely necessary.  He cited one case that saw a litigant pay $860,000 Australian.

The reason lawyers can get away with such outrageous behavior is that child custody cases are winner-take-all enterprises.  One parent wins; one loses.  They both know the situation going into the case and, egged on by lawyers who understand perfectly how well inter­-spousal conflict can pay, fight tooth and nail to avoid being the one dubbed “visitor.”

Now we get some particulars on just how far lawyers can take the fear and loathing begotten by our child custody system (Daily Record, 1/26/18).  John Murphy had an order from a Georgia family court giving him primary custody of his two children.  His ex-wife wanted to modify that order and hired Atlanta lawyer Millard Farmer to represent her.  Over the course of more than four years, Farmer scorched the earth.  We know a few of the tactics he used because, after all was said and done, Murphy sued him under state racketeering laws.  A federal jury recently returned a civil verdict in Murphy’s favor and awarded him $242,835 in damages.

The jury in the civil case determined by a preponderance of evidence that Farmer, as part of the racketeering enterprise, engaged in attempted theft by extortion, attempted bribery, intimidation of a court officer, influencing witnesses, interstate travel in aid of racketeering and interference with custody, according to the verdict…

But [Murphy’s lawyer, Buddy] Parker said he told the jury that Farmer’s litigation tactics amounted to “terroristic lawyering” designed to “exert as much financial pain and emotional pain” as possible over a custody modification petition that ultimately took four-and-a-half years to resolve…

The jury verdict included findings that Farmer:

Attempted to bribe Coweta Superior Court Judge Quillian Baldwin by suing his court reporter and then offering to dismiss the suit if Baldwin recused from the litigation and made his recusal retroactive to predate his 2012 ruling giving custody of the two boys to their father.

Intimidated Baldwin’s court reporter by contacting her lawyer, saying he would dismiss the suit against her if she persuaded the judge to recuse retroactive to the custody ruling.

Tampered with witnesses and court-appointed personnel by making inflammatory accusations intended to damage the professional reputations of two court-appointed guardians ad litem and three court-appointed psychologists, the judge, and Haugerud, John Murphy’s current wife, either with litigation, threats to sue or complaints to their respective licensing or ethics boards.

Attempted to extort funds from Murphy and his wife by allegedly engaging in efforts to impair their credit and professional reputations through the dissemination of information accusing them of criminal offenses, and making false statements over interstate wires to the media.

With any luck, Farmer will be disbarred into the bargain.  Tactics like those found by the civil court jury should have no place in the conduct of any lawsuit.  Sadly, they all too often show up in cases in which litigants rightly fear the worst – the loss of their children.  Those parents have every reason to fear that because it happens as a matter of course.  It shouldn’t. Reform of laws on custody and parenting time and the education of family court judges in the benefits of shared parenting to children would take most of the conflict out of divorce and child custody cases.

It would also mean lawyers like Farmer would be unable to convince their clients that what they do and the fees they charge are necessary.  Of course the vast majority of family lawyers aren’t as despicable as Farmer seems to have been, but, when the system offers such rich rewards for bad behavior, no one is surprised when some take advantage.

Farmer abused the system. The main reason he was able to – perhaps the only reason – is the absence of a presumption of shared parenting.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#divorce, #sharedparenting, #racketeering

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

January 26, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

I can think of nothing that better illustrates the attitude of child protective service agencies toward parents than what this article reports on (New York Daily Record, 1/19/18).The position taken by the agency is beyond the pale.

Back last March, the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services issued a request for proposals.Stated another way, ILS had money to grant and wanted applications.They received one from the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office. It was seeking funds to provide attorneys for indigent parents accused in juvenile court of abuse or neglect of their children.ILS approved a grant of $2.6 million for that purpose, no small sum for a county public defender’s office.

So, that’s a positive development, right?Yes, but Monroe County refused the grant.That’s right, offered $2.6 million of money with no strings attached, county officials turned it down.I wonder how often that happens.How often do state agencies refuse large grants of free money? My guess is that the refusal is more or less unprecedented.

How does the county justify the refusal?

Monroe County officials have turned down a $2.6 million state grant because the funding would have paid for attorneys to represent indigent parents much earlier in Family Court cases, which they claim would interfere with child neglect and abuse investigations.

Monroe County spokesman Jesse Sleezer said in a written statement that the initiatives funded by the grant “could have unintended consequences on the county’s efforts to keep children and families safe.”

“The program itself, although well-intentioned, would have injected lawyers into cases of abuse and neglect much earlier, potentially intimidating child victims and limiting access by CPS workers who would otherwise assess and monitor the child’s safety,” he said in the statement.

“The attorneys involved in this pilot program would serve only one client — the parent accused of abuse — and would not have any professional responsibility to serve the best interests of the abused child,” Sleezer said.

In short, the county refused the money because it would be used to assist the poor.Poor parents would appear in court with attorneys when the child protective agency tried to take their kids from them.Of course parents with greater resources do that as a matter of course.And I’ve pointed out many times that the main targets of CPS agencies nationwide are the poor.That’s in part because the poor tend to be less educated than others and therefore less likely to know and assert their constitutional rights regarding CPS.And of course they’re less able to navigate the sometimes byzantine workings of juvenile courts and usually unable to hire a lawyer.

So Monroe County doesn’t want the poor to have the same rights and opportunities as other people.It wants to make it as easy as possible to take children from parents and the easiest way to do that is by targeting the poor.

Meanwhile, others see more clearly.

Family Court Judge Joan Kohout said county officials “missed the point.”

“This is to help poor families so that they are in the same position as more financially well-off families,” she said.

“What they have neglected to consider is that parents who have financial ability to hire their own attorneys do that. This program would provide the same right and the same access to legal advice to poor parents,” Kohout said.

Kohout is being generous.I don’t think for an instant that the county “neglected to consider” any such thing.I think county decision makers understand all too well the result of allowing lawyers to the poor.They know very well that, when a parent arrives in court with an attorney, the state’s ability to take children from those parents immediately diminishes.They know how easy it is to intimidate poor parents and basically have their way with them.Child protection officials like it that way.Too many lawyers mean too many pesky rights to observe.It cuts down on the agency’s ability to take children whether warranted or not.

And that’s not all.

ILS sought to establish “a model Parental Representation Office” outside of New York City to provide legal representation and other services to parents in Article 10 child neglect proceedings and Article 10 termination of parental rights cases.

In addition to hiring four new attorneys in the Public Defender’s Office, the funding would pay for four new social workers.

The “demonstration project” envisioned would use a “client-centered, holistic, and multidisciplinary model of representation that addresses both the legal and social services issues inherent in state intervention cases,” according to the RFP.

In other words, with the grant money, the Public Defender’s Office would not only have brought lawyers into court to confront the county’s lawyers, it would have brought social workers to confront the county’s caseworkers.Not only would the county have had to respect parents’ legal rights, but it would have no longer had a monopoly on the evidence provided by social workers.Giving poor parents the power to seriously contest the county legally and with evidence plainly didn’t sit well with county officials.

As we’ve seen in the past, child protection workers often exercise their power arbitrarily and with little interest in the rights of parents or children.Indeed, in Texas, we’ve seen family court judges slam CPS workers for blatantly infringing on the rights of parents and children.

“Unfortunately, experience has shown that agencies too often wield their emergency removal power in situations where such drastic state action is unnecessary, and without first attempting to address the issues that brought the family to the agency’s attention,” according to the RFP.

Monroe County’s refusal of a large amount of grant money is unconscionable.It reveals as clearly as anything I know the mindset of child protective agencies nationwide.Those agencies think of their own power and prerogatives long before they consider the welfare of children.The ILS money and the Public Defender’s plan for it threatened that power.That its purpose was to help level the playing field between the poor and those better off while keeping morefamilies together apparently made no difference to the county.

Their behavior is beneath contempt.Monroe County officials need to think again.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#childprotectiveservices, #juvenilecourt, #familycourtthepoor

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

January 25, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

The timing of this story couldn’t be better. Just yesterday I wrote about the well-meaning but largely uninformed Mava Enoka who cheerfully instructed readers that fathers are fully capable of caring for children, New Zealand culture should encourage them to do so and, if it did, mothers would benefit by being freed to work and earn more. All true, but her sole idea for accomplishing those ends was to give fathers more parental leave after the birth of a child. She ignored family courts altogether and their sidelining of fathers.

So it’s entirely right that this article should come out the very next day (Stuff, 1/24/18).

A heartbroken father has dropped his fight to spend more time with his young children.

For two years, Tom* has battled in court to see his two boys more than every other weekend.

But after yet another failed court hearing this week, the Marlborough man says the “emotional toll” on the children is too much.

“I love them very much and this has been all about them, not me, but enough is enough. The emotional toll is too high and this is not just a Marlborough issue but a nationwide one,” he says.

“All I get from the courts is the runaround and nobody has ever given me a valid reason why I can’t see more of them. Now I’m supposed to pay$3000 for a S133 psychological report [a suitability-to-care report] by a court appointed doctor to see more of the children I already care for.”

Tom, who was diagnosed with a brain tumour last year,sees his children every second weekend and every other week during the school holidays. He was fighting for equal access, but would have settled for an extra two nights a week.

Sound familiar? It should. Time and again, fit fathers are marginalized for no good reason in the lives of their children. “Tom” is just the latest. There is no reason for his being forced to be an every-other-weekend dad. There is every reason why he shouldn’t be. The principal reason of course is the welfare of his children who would certainly do better both now and in the future with two parents actively involved in their lives. But, contrary to Mava Enoka’s sunny beliefs, countless fathers can’t do that simple thing because courts won’t allow it. During marriage they were good, loving fathers with whom their children enjoyed loving and nurturing relationships. No serious person would argue that those marital relationships were anything but in the children’s best interests.

But according to family court judges throughout the English-speaking world, come divorce, a kind of alchemy takes place by which good fathers who are loved and needed by their kids become superfluous. No one has yet explained that process and of course no one is about to start.

The New Zealand Fathers’ Rights Movement has 1228 followers on Facebook.

Group advocate and member Dillon Chisnell says the family court system is biased towards women.

“For fathers, it’s guilty until proven innocent.

“From my experience it’s fundamentally skewed towards mothers but I know that society has changed in the last 20 to 30 years, moving away from the patriarchal age where the mother stayed at home and the father went out to earn the bacon.

About reforms that would actually change things for the better for fathers and children, Mava Enoka has nothing to say. And, needless to say, neither does the family lawyer quoted by the linked-to article.

Family Law lawyer and mediator Michelle Duggan says parental rights do not distinguish between a mother and father and are determined by a court by what is in the best interests of the child or children.

She’s right that the law is scrupulously gender-neutral. The problem is that judges aren’t. The pro-mother/anti-father bias of courts has been well established, at least here in the States. But given the fact that shared parenting is best for kids in all but rare cases, plus the fact that maternal sole/primary custody runs between 80% and 90% in all those countries, it’s hard to make the case that family court judges aren’t biased.

And no, they don’t act in children’s interests. They say they do, but they don’t. Just look at “Tom,” kicked to the curb in his children’s lives, and for what? Certainly not their interests.

For example, according to Canadian economist Paul Millar, by far the best predictor of a custody outcome is the sex of the parent. Overwhelmingly, mothers get custody and fathers lose it, often entirely. This is true despite the fact that there is no evidence that children do better in sole maternal care and much that they do not. Indeed, Canadian psychologist Dr. Edward Kruk of the University of British Columbia, has written bluntly “The sole custody or ‘primary residence’ model of child custody determination is not empirically supported.”

Meanwhile, the shared parenting model is well supported by an abundance of peer-reviewed studies.

The typical judicial order is exactly like the one endured by “Tom.” It’s wrong for Tom and his kids. It’s wrong in almost every case. It’s contrary to the great weight of scientific evidence on children’s welfare. Judges must be educated in that science. And they must set aside their biases when deciding custody and parenting time. And Mava Enoka needs to get a clue.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#sharedparenting, #NewZealand, #fathers’rights

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein