Lowell father's 12-year battle a key factor in bill before Legislature to change visitation rights
LOWELL -- It has been more than a decade since Shawn Gillespie's acrimonious divorce turned into a custody battle that drained him mentally, physically and financially.
After only a year of marriage and one son, Gillespie and his wife split in 2002, triggering a downhill spiral that forced him to spend thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees and court costs, and lost time at work, in a battle for visitation rights to see his son.
"I had the fight of my life,'' said the 51-year-old truck driver from Lowell. Gillespie said he was stymied by judges who sided with his ex-wife, who took out a restraining order against Gillespie, creating a legal barrier for him to see his son. "I was in and out of court for years," he said.
"The courts are a legal vehicle to shatter someone's life.''
Fathers, he said, "always seem to get the short end of the stick.''
Thirteen years later, there are fewer issues surrounding visitation since Gillespie's every-other-weekend visitation schedule now revolves around his teenage son's schedule of school, friends and sports. But the years have not lessened Gillespie's bitterness about how he was treated by the courts.
"The system is broken and unfair toward dads,'' he said. 'Utopia doesn't exist'
Ned Holstein, founder of National Parents Organization, agrees.
"Utopia doesn't exist,'' Holstein said, at least not in the world of divorce and child-custody battles.
But a proposed bill, called the Massachusetts Child-Centered Family Law, strives to overhaul the state's outdated child-custody law and supports a "more modern understanding'' of what is in the best interest of children when parents divorce, Holstein said.
"The antiquated child-custody laws were written decades ago and amended with tweaks, but it has not kept up with dramatic changes in the family,'' Holstein said. Massachusetts is one of about 20 states considering shared-parenting legislation.
The proposed bill was born out of recommendations from an 18-member panel, the Massachusetts Working Group on Child-Centered Family Law, created by then-Gov. Deval Patrick. After an 18-month study, the working group proposed major changes in the current custody laws.While Holstein admits there is "no magic number'' for the amount of time a child spends with each parent, a judge should "encourage'' parents to share responsibilities with a child, spending one-third of the time with each parent, plus school.
"It's a guideline,'' Holstein said, "a gentle push to the courts to get with the modern age.'' 'Shared parenting,' not 'visitation'
A key provision of the bill removes the "hated'' word "visitation'' from the language, replacing it with a phrase of "shared parenting'' after divorce, Holstein said.
While it may seem like a child is pushed and pulled between the homes of mother and father, research shows children want the shuttling between homes if it provides a close relationship with both parents, Holstein said. Children who spent most of their time with one parent and visited the other said "they missed out on a close relationship" with the other parent, Holstein said.
Holstein suggested that some probate lawyers don't want to "fix'' the adversarial environment of divorce court that leads to lengthy and costly custody battles.
The old doctrine says that children, especially young children, should be raised by the mother, but fathers have complained that visitation makes them "a visitor in their child's life,'' Holstein said.
Holstein admits that shared parenting may not work if the parents live too far apart, or if there are issues of substance or physical abuse.
Critics of the changes argue that an abusive parent could be given more time with a vulnerable child. A parent who is abusive or has substance-abuse issues will not be a candidate for shared parenting, Holstein said.
In cases where distance is the issue, a judge would have the discretion to tell parents that if they want shared custody, they have to move closer.
"The incentive is spending more time with your child,'' he said.
Rep. Garry: 'Long way to go'
On July 22, the bill was heard by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which includes state Rep. Colleen Garry.
While she supports the bill, the Dracut Democrat admits it "has a long way to go before passage, unfortunately.'' Garry noted that the bill's detractors see it as taking discretion away from judges, but she disagrees. "I feel that it is just setting the standard of shared parenting, in which judges can still use discretion,'' she said.
But Garry said the biggest issue when a family is divided by divorce is finances.
"It's hard to run two households on the same funds,'' she said.
One parent usually has to make the sacrifice so the children can maintain the same lifestyle as before the divorce, she said.
Attorney Denise Squillante, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and a member of the working group, said in a statement: "This proposed legislation provides a workable and understandable framework for litigants to understand important considerations that the court will utilize when the needs of a child, which are paramount, are being considered in developing the parenting plan and parental responsibilities.''
Follow Lisa Redmond on Tout and Twitter@lredmond13_lisa.
State legislative sessions are underway and family law bills are being introduced around the nation that are designed to improve non-custodial parent's access to their child/ren.
Under Illinois ’ visitation interference law, The Steve Watkins Act; the law gave judges new tools to
enforce access. Those tools include
suspending drivers licenses, assessing fines, requiring bonds to assure order
compliance, ordering make up time and incarcerating offenders who repeatedly
interfere with the other parent’s access.
Illinois Legislators have given the green light Illinois House Bill 2992 (First Right of Refusal) and have asked that we CALL TODAY. The 3rd reading (the final vote) has been set for tomorrow. (We now have 8 sponsors in the Senate – great job Richard and everyone else.) If we want HB2992 (Right Of First Refusal) to pass, and future support from legislators (or recognition that we are a political force), we need to make our voices loud and clear.
This is the final vote before it goes to the Governor. Remember, it has already made it through the House unanimously. Now it is before the full Senate.
We need to reach as many Senators as possible with calls, faxes, emails, etc., all asking for support of HB2992. Here is the list of Senators: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/
Illinois Legislators have given the green light Illinois House Bill 2992 (First Right of Refusal) and have asked that we CALL TODAY. The 3rd reading (the final vote) has been set for tomorrow. (We now have 8 sponsors in the Senate – great job Richard and everyone else.) If we want HB2992 (Right Of First Refusal) to pass, and future support from legislators (or recognition that we are a political force), we need to make our voices loud and clear.
This is the final vote before it goes to the Governor. Remember, it has already made it through the House unanimously. Now it is before the full Senate.
We need to reach as many Senators as possible with calls, faxes, emails, etc., all asking for support of HB2992. Here is the list of Senators: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, September 10, 2015
Will Massachusetts succeed in passing shared parenting legislation?
Posted by Divorce Corp. on Thursday, September 10, 2015
Divorce selfies are a growing trend. How do you feel about the views they reflect?
Posted by Divorce Corp. on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Ha! She was born three hours after being served with legal papers ... ;)
Posted by The Florida Bar on Thursday, September 10, 2015
Significant week for Shared Parenting with custody bills expected to be voted on and/or heard in Illinois, Nebraska and Florida. Shared parenting legislation also recently introduced in North Carolina.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/ACFCorg
I hope this bill is taken seriously. Look what it took. A devoted and loving father was taken from his daughter's life. All because of these wicked court games parents have to play.
ReplyDeleteAll States need to take immediate action ! EVERY STATE !!
ReplyDeleteIt's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."