September 7th, 2010

Holstein Debates Leading Senator on F & F’s Shared Parenting Bill

Defend Judge in Hot Water for Combating Visitation Interference

View this email with images
Be sure to add to your address book or safe sender list so our emails get to your inbox.
Fathers and Families

Holstein Debates Leading Senator on F & F’s Shared Parenting Bill; Defend Judge in Hot Water for Combating Visitation Interference
September 7, 2010
Top Stories
Holstein Debates Leading Senator on F & F’s Shared Parenting Bill

CreemFathers and Families Board Chairman Ned Holstein, MD, MS debated Massachusetts state Senator Cynthia Creem, co-chair of the Joint Committee on The Judiciary, on the subject of family court reform and HB 1400, Fathers and Families’ shared parenting bill. 

Creem is currently in the middle of a hotly contested electoral battle to save her state Senate seat. The Creem-Holstein debate began with Dr. Holstein’s column Senator Creem and Mr. Rudnick, Help our children (Newton Tab, 8/24/10). Senator Creem fired back at Holstein with her column Acting in the best interests of children of divorce (Newton Tab, 8/31/10). Creem wrote:

Sharing custody equally can be hard, especially when parents live a great distance apart, or where limited incomes make it difficult for both parents to maintain a home for the child. Some find that consistency and stability for the child is more important than a rigid 50-50 split of parenting time. Often, even parents who reach an agreement voluntarily don’t opt for shared physical custody.

In those situations where parents can barely speak to one another, simply applying a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution — one that depends for its success on mutual respect and cooperation — is a recipe for more problems and more conflict, not the harmony that children need. Numerous psychological studies have shown that when relations between parents are contentious, shared parenting offers children no benefit.

Holstein responded that it isn’t our shared parenting bill that is the “cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution.” He explains:

Actually, what we have now is a one-size-fits-all solution — courts order sole physical custody to one parent over 90% of the time — and the Fathers & Families bill would bring far more variety to the outcomes, tailoring the parenting schedule to the needs of each individual child.

Ned HolsteinCreem’s belief that shared parenting should be voided when the parents “can barely speak to one another” amounts to an acceptance of what’s known as the Hostile Parent Veto. In a state like Massachusetts, which overwhelmingly awards child custody to mothers over fathers, when a custodial mother doesn’t want to shared custody, all she has to do is manufacture “conflict” and the courts often throw up their hands and say “we can’t have shared parenting if there’s conflict.”

To Creem’s credit, she does express a willingness to work with Fathers and Families on certain aspects of family court reform, and she did call Dr. Holstein in June to open a dialogue with F & F about HB 1400. In her new piece, she writes:

I filed legislation last year to make a simple yet powerful change to the law on custody and visitation. Under my bill, emotionally charged words like “custody” and “visitation” could be replaced with terms such as “decision-making responsibility” and “residential responsibility” and “parental rights and responsibilities.”

In such conflict-laden circumstances, little things can make a big difference, and I truly believe that this bill would go a long way toward de-escalating custody battles, allowing more parents to reach agreements…Ned Holstein shares my view on this, and I hope that we can work together to see it become law.

Similarly, I share his view that children are generally better off when they have continuing, positive relationships with both parents — something that can happen with or without a presumption for shared parenting. Where I disagree is only in how best to achieve that, because I do not believe that any court — now or under the shared-parenting approach — has the power to give children what they need most: two parents who can set aside their personal differences to act responsibly in the best interests of their children.

Dr. Holstein’s response to Creem’s column is below:

It is refreshing that Senator Creem has now engaged on the issue of family court reform. Mr. Rudnick should now do the same, given the intense interest in this issue among voters.

The Senator and I do have a few areas of agreement, such as a change in terminology that would do away with such words as visitation. After all, a parent is a parent, not a visitor. Sadly, this bill was not voted out of the Judiciary Committee, of which she is co-chair.

Unfortunately, Senator Creem does not address the one issue that constituents care most about — that as a practicing divorce attorney, she has a strong appearance of a conflict of interest when she blocks reform of archaic traditions of the family courts that breed high conflict divorces.

It is also dismaying that she has not reported Fathers and Families’ shared parenting bill accurately. I cannot help but wonder whether she took the time as Co-chair of the Judiciary Committee to actually read the bill. Readers can see our bill for themselves at

Here are some of the non-issues that Senator Creem unfortunately raises:

1) That reformers want to change the best interests of the child standard. Not true. Fathers and Families’ shared parenting bill would retain this standard. Shared parenting would not be ordered if sole custody were in the child’s best interests.

2) That shared parenting would be imposed in every case. Our bill is very clear: the judge could still order sole custody to one parent in any case in which that would be best for the child. The only thing the judge would have to do to depart from shared parenting would be to write down the reasons why.

3) That the bill would mandate a rigid 50-50 split of parenting time. On the contrary, the bill instructs the court simply to endeavor to maximize the exposure of the child to each of the parents so far as the same is practicable. I’d say that’s pretty flexible.

4) That shared parenting is a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution. Actually, what we have now is a one-size-fits-all solution — courts order sole physical custody to one parent over 90% of the time — and the Fathers & Families bill would bring far more variety to the outcomes, tailoring the parenting schedule to the needs of each individual child.

5) That shared parenting would be imposed in cases in which parents can barely speak to one another, or live a great distance apart. Not so. See 2 and 3 above.

6) That we are fathers’ rights activists. The Senator knows that we do not seek any special rights for fathers. Readers can look at our website and see that the wellbeing of children is our primary concern and that Gender Equality is a core principle:

And while Senator Creem quotes the Boston Globe about shared parenting correctly, she leaves out other parts, such as the Globe’s belief that F & F’s goal of shared parenting is “a goal with great merit.”

I would feel better about Senator Creem’s claim that she supports divorce law reform if there had been evidence of this during her years in the Senate. Or if she had devoted this column to the joy children feel when they do not have to lose a parent in a divorce, rather than using most of the column to attack an imaginary bill that no one has filed.

But to her credit, at least she is engaging with the voters on an issue they care about. This requires courage when one feels unfairly attacked. But Mr. Rudnick remains silent. Mr. Rudnick, where are you?

Late note: Both Creem and Rudnick have written new pieces for the Newton Tab. Please comment on Creem’s piece by clicking here. Rudnick’s piece is here.

If you’re interested in getting involved in Massachusetts family court reform activism, please fill out our volunteer form here.

Join Fathers and Families
Fathers and Families
Fathers and Families is a family court reform organization with a comprehensive strategy, an impressive history of legislative and fundraising success, and the largest reach of any advocacy group of its kind:

ACTION ALERT: Defend Judge Who Told Mom to Stop Interfering with Ex’s Visitation!
Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Max Baker is facing ethics violations for his conduct in a family court case where he says he was only “trying to get [the mother] to understand the detrimental nature of denying the child’s father access.”
Judge Baker has apologized to the mother, “acknowledging that the manner in which he spoke to her and the words he utilized were wrong.” Through his attorney, Judge Baker says his “remarks… demonstrated an inappropriate level of patience and courtesy, all of which was unintentional” and that his actions were only a result “of his desire to do justice to children.”

At Fathers and Families we certainly believe that judges should treat all litigants with respect and courtesy, and if Judge Baker erred in these areas, we do not condone this. However, what’s missing from the media coverage of this case and (apparently) from the ethics proceedings is the simple fact that what Baker was trying to do was correct.

Judges are continually faced with vindictive mothers and fathers who want to drive their exes out of their children’s lives. Too often courts allow these parents to slide by or get away with their misconduct.  We commend judges like Baker who stand up for children’s right to a relationship with both parents.

The article on the case is hereWe suggest you write a Letter to the Editor of the Atlantic City Press explaining that visitation interference and Parental Alienation are serious problems, and commending Baker for trying to do something about it. The paper’s guidelines ask that you include your name, full address, daytime and evening phone numbers. The shorter the letter, the more likely it will be published.

To post a web comment on the piece, click here.

To read the full article, see Atlantic County Superior Court judge – accused of screaming at a woman during a custody hearing – apologizes but denies ethics violation (Atlantic City Press, 9/4/10).

What’s Happening
Parental Alienation Conference in NYC, Oct 2nd and 3rd

Parental Alienation Causes Short and Long-Term Damage to Children

“In a desperate attempt to maintain a relationship in the only ways possible (identification and alliance) with the parent who is, at the end of the alienation process, the only parent from a psychological and sometimes physical point of view, the child will mirror the personality and the distorted perceptions of the alienating parent. The blame for anxiety consequent to the insecurity of attachments will be externalized and attributed to the other parent.”–social worker Leona Kopetski

National Survey of Families and Households Omits Data on Household Work Done by Men

NCP Choices Programs Offer Help TX Noncustodial Parents Facing Unemployment

Audit: Los Angeles Dept. of Children and Family Services Covering Up Child Fatalities

Kristin Ruggiero Sentenced to 7-14 Years Behind Bars

Woman Allegedly Faked Pregnancy to Get Child Support

British Airways Abandons Anti-Male Discrimination Policy

‘What My Dad Did Right’ Highlights Key Roles of Fathers in Bloggers’ Lives

Article Lauds Equally Shared Parenting, but With Funky Figures and Twisted Logic
Parental Alienation Syndrome: One Father’s Story

Champion Speed Skater Embroiled in Custody Dispute Found Dead in Burning Car

Australian Ombudsman: Child Support Agency Unfairly Targets Dads 

Canadian Greens Endorse Presumption of Equally Shared Parenting

Attorney: Best Interests of the Child Determination ‘Subjective, Inconsistent, Often Erroneous’

F & F Member Praises Subaru Ad for Father-Son Bond, Subaru Responds  

The Sacrifices of Fathers Help Families Facing Tough Challenges

NCP Choices Programs Offer Help TX Noncustodial Parents Facing Unemployment

Kids & Dads

“My father gave me the greatest gift anyone could give another person, he believed in me.”

–Jimmy Valvano, about his father Rocco. While head coach at North Carolina State University, Jimmy Valvano won the 1983 NCAA Basketball Tournament against high odds. His career record was 346–212.

We’re Reforming the Family Court System—Join Us!

Missed an E-Newsletter? Read Them All Here


This email contains a promotional message from the non-profit organization Fathers and Families.
© 2010. Fathers and Families. All Rights Reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *