July 31, 2011
“[Opponents are] concerned about the effects of parental acrimony on children. Agreed. But what could possibly produce more acrimony than a custody battle in which one parent is the victor and the other the vanquished? Shared parenting defuses acrimony by treating parents as equals.”
The Boston Globe Magazine ran a feature interview (pictured, right) with Fathers and Families” Board Chairman and founder Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S. on Father’s Day.
In the piece — Fighting dad (6/18/11) — Holstein spoke in support of our shared parenting bill H02684, which has been endorsed by nearly a third of the Massachusetts legislature.
Opponents of the interests of children of divorce—the domestic violence group Jane Doe Inc., and a divorce attorney, Laura W. Gal—quickly fired back.
Jane Doe’s Executive Director Mary R. Lauby accuses Holstein and F & F of “wholesale misogyny” and writes:
A review of case outcomes in Massachusetts reveals that in cases where the divorce is contested and abuse is reported, fathers are likely to receive either sole or joint custody. In addition, abusive husbands are more likely to contest custody as a means of controlling or emotionally attacking their victims.
In another letter, divorce attorney Gal writes:
…Holstein…claims that judges use “default’ or “cookie-cutter’ solutions and show “old-fashioned gender bias.’ As a family law attorney, I can say these claims are inaccurate and misleading…The current law is clear and comprehensive: (1) Parents have equal rights; (2) there is no presumption in favor of, or against, shared custody; and (3) custody decisions are based on the best interests of the children. There is no default outcome. Bias is explicitly prohibited.
We discussed these claims here. Today the Globe Magazine printed Dr. Holstein’s response:
Attorney Laura W. Gal and Mary R. Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., attack Fathers and Families for its advocacy of joint physical custody of children of divorce (Letters, July 10). I invite them to join us in exploring solutions for our children instead of attacking constructive ideas.
Gal is concerned about the effects of parental acrimony on children. Agreed. But what could possibly produce more acrimony than a custody battle in which one parent is the victor and the other the vanquished? Shared parenting defuses acrimony by treating parents as equals.
Lauby angrily accuses us of “wholesale misogyny.’ Where is the misogyny in saying that we wish to share our children with our ex-partners? Let”s put aside the anger and try to help them.
We share Lauby”s concern about domestic violence. That is why our legislation would not require victims of batterers to share custody. On the other hand, a minority of batterers should not preclude shared parenting for the large majority of lawful parents and their children.
We agree with Gal and Lauby that we need to stay focused on the best interests of children. Shared parenting is a great step in that direction.
The Globe Magazine also printed a pro-shared parenting letter from Fathers and Families supporter David A. Bardes, who discussed how shared parenting has worked for his daughter. To read it, click here.