Understanding Parental Rights in the Context of Divorce
In most legal systems, parental rights are grounded in the idea that both parents have an inherent right to raise and care for their children. These rights include the ability to make decisions about the child’s upbringing, education, health, and other fundamental matters. However, when a divorce or separation occurs, those rights can sometimes be altered, especially if there are concerns about the child’s well-being, such as:
-
Custody battles: When parents disagree on custody arrangements, courts are tasked with making decisions based on the best interests of the child. This often results in one parent being awarded primary custody while the other has visitation rights, leading some parents to feel that their relationship with their child is unfairly limited.
-
Child support and financial arrangements: In many cases, child support payments and visitation or custody schedules are linked. If a parent feels the financial aspect is unfair or the visitation rights are too limited, they may feel that their fundamental rights to a meaningful relationship with their child have been diminished.
-
Allegations of abuse or neglect: When one parent makes allegations of abuse or neglect, even if they are later found to be false or unsubstantiated, it can lead to a temporary suspension of the accused parent’s custody rights, sometimes with the burden of proof placed on the accused parent to restore those rights.
Key Issues Leading to the Feeling of Rights Being Taken Away
-
Unilateral Decisions: Sometimes, one parent may make unilateral decisions about where the child lives, goes to school, or spends their time, especially if there is an imbalance of power or communication in the relationship. This can leave the other parent feeling sidelined and marginalized, as if their role as a parent has been reduced to that of a visitor rather than an active, decision-making member of the child’s life.
-
Parenting Time and Visitation: Many divorced or separated parents feel that the custody or visitation arrangements do not adequately allow them to be as involved in their child's life as they would like. Shared custody (which is ideally the default in many legal systems) may not be available in every case, leaving one parent with significantly less time with the child.
-
Parental Alienation: In some high-conflict divorces, one parent may try to alienate the child from the other parent, either through manipulation, negative comments, or other strategies. This can result in one parent feeling as though they have lost their child, emotionally or physically. Courts often do not act quickly enough to address parental alienation, and many parents report feeling that the legal system doesn’t adequately address this issue.
-
Bias in Family Courts: There is a well-documented concern about potential gender bias in family law, particularly regarding custody decisions. In many cases, mothers are still more likely to be awarded primary custody, which can lead fathers to feel that their rights as parents are not being equally considered. Conversely, some mothers feel that their rights are undermined in cases where they lose custody or are forced to accept less-than-ideal visitation schedules.
-
Legal and Financial Barriers: Some parents face significant legal and financial barriers to gaining or maintaining access to their children. The cost of legal representation can be prohibitive, particularly for lower-income parents, which may prevent them from having the resources to fight for a fair arrangement. This can leave them feeling like their fundamental rights to be a parent have been effectively "bought out" by a system that favors wealthier parents.
The Emotional Impact of Losing Parental Rights
For parents who are marginalized in custody decisions, the emotional toll is significant. These parents often feel:
-
Disconnection: The inability to spend quality time with their children can create a feeling of emotional disconnection and loss, especially if the relationship was once strong.
-
Anger and Resentment: Many parents feel anger or resentment toward the other parent, the legal system, or both for what they perceive as an unjust outcome. This can lead to ongoing conflict, further straining the relationship with the child.
-
Isolation: In some cases, a parent may feel isolated, especially if the child is living primarily with the other parent or if the legal system has placed restrictions on their ability to interact with the child.
What Can Be Done to Protect Parental Rights and Parent-Child Bonds?
-
Shared Custody as the Default: Many family law experts advocate for shared custody (or joint physical custody) to be the default arrangement in divorce cases, unless there are compelling reasons not to (e.g., domestic violence, abuse, neglect). Shared custody recognizes that both parents play an important role in the child’s life and ensures that no parent is unduly marginalized.
-
Reforming Family Courts: There is a growing push for family court reforms to make decisions more equitable, with a focus on reducing bias, improving handling of parental alienation, and emphasizing mediation and co-parenting rather than adversarial litigation. Courts may also need to adopt more modern, flexible approaches to visitation, recognizing that every family is unique.
-
Improving Parental Alienation Awareness: As parental alienation becomes more widely recognized as a serious issue, courts may begin to take more decisive action to prevent or address it. Educating parents and legal professionals about the impact of alienation and offering therapy or counseling may help protect the parent-child bond.
-
Promoting Co-Parenting and Mediation: Programs that encourage cooperative co-parenting and mediation can help parents work together to make decisions in the child’s best interest. Mediation allows parents to have more control over the outcome and may prevent contentious litigation that harms the parent-child relationship.
-
Support for Parents: In many cases, providing more support for parents (financially, emotionally, or logistically) can help preserve the parent-child bond. This could involve subsidized or free legal services for low-income parents, access to counseling and mental health services, or the implementation of more flexible visitation arrangements.
-
Legal Advocacy for Parental Rights: There are advocacy groups and legal professionals who work specifically to protect parental rights in the context of divorce and custody disputes. These groups often advocate for reforms that emphasize fairness and the importance of both parents remaining involved in their child’s life, even after separation or divorce.
Final Thoughts
The idea that millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental rights to their own children "taken away" reflects a very real and painful experience for many. It highlights the emotional weight of losing not just access to a child but also the ability to be an active, guiding figure in that child's life. While family law systems are designed to protect the well-being of children, the system is not without flaws, and many parents find themselves feeling marginalized or sidelined in the process.
The challenge moving forward is to ensure that the system works in a way that is fair, equitable, and, most importantly, centered around the best interests of the child. At the same time, it’s critical to recognize and respect the rights of both parents to maintain meaningful relationships with their children, whenever possible.
Do you think reforming the family law system could better protect the parent-child bond, or are there other ways to address these concerns?
Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother.
.... If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?
It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.
The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?
We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.
Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.
When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.
An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.
An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason forshared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.
Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."
Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.
This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
Children's Bill of Rights
ReplyDeleteWHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER
Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn't forget -- and kids shouldn't let them -- when the family is in the midst of a break-up.
You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both of them. That means you shouldn't feel guilty about wanting to see your dad or your mom at any time. It's important for you to have both parents in your life, particularly during difficult times such as a break-up of your parents.
You do not have to choose one parent over the other. If you have an opinion about which parent you want to live with, let it be known. But nobody can force you to make that choice. If your parents can't work it out, a judge may make the decision for them.
You're entitled to all the feelings you're having. Don't be embarrassed by what you're feeling. It is scary when your parents break up, and you're allowed to be scared. Or angry. Or sad. Or whatever.
You have the right to be in a safe environment. This means that nobody is allowed to put you in danger, either physically or emotionally. If one of your parents is hurting you, tell someone -- either your other parent or a trusted adult like a teacher.
You don't belong in the middle of your parents' break-up. Sometimes your parents may get so caught up in their own problems that they forget that you're just a kid, and that you can't handle their adult worries. If they start putting you in the middle of their dispute, remind them that it's their fight, not yours.
Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.
You have the right to be a child. Kids shouldn't worry about adult problems. Concentrate on your school work, your friends, activities, etc. Your mom and dad just need your love. They can handle the rest.
IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT AND DON'T BLAME YOURSELF.
----Special Concerns of Children Committee, March, 1998
"Children's Bill of Rights" is a publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. © 1997 - 2001. All rights reserved. "Children's Bill of Rights" may be reproduced under the following conditions:
It must be reproduced in its entirety with no additions or deletions, including the AAML copyright notice. It must be distributed free of charge. The AAML reserves the right to limit or deny the right of reproduction in its sole discretion.
© 2013 AAML Florida. 3046 Hawks Glen Tallahassee, FL 32312 | 850-668-0614
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask the attorney to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
http://www.aamlflorida.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.tentips
The Violence Against Women Act Ignores Half the Problem ~ By Anna Rittgers
ReplyDeleteThe 2011 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) provides funding for programs to address domestic violence and will expand the act’s provisions to include services for gays and lesbians. Theoretically, male victims of violence are eligible for help, too. But did you know that? I thought not.
The problem with reauthorizing VAWA is that doing so would perpetuate the notion that domestic violence is something that happens only to women. While it is true that VAWA has evolved over time and now ensures that male victims of partner violence can avail themselves of VAWA benefits and services, the very name of the act implies otherwise. It is quite likely that a male victim would not know he can seek help, given the name of the act.
The image of the abuser is almost always a guy. But this simply isn’t the case. One of the pioneers of the study of family violence was sociologist Richard J. Gelles. Gelles wrote a seminal 1999 article for the old Women’s Quarterly, then a publication of the Independent Women’s Forum, on the “hidden victims” of violence.[i] Gelles admitted that 25 years earlier he had overlooked something important when, in the course of doing research, he meet a couple he called Faith and Alan. Faith had been beaten by boyfriends, her ex-husband, and her husband. Faith’s troubles became the focus of Gelles’s article. Gelles barely noted Faith’s violence towards men, which included breaking Alan’s bones and stabbing a man while he read the newspaper. Faith’s violence merited a mere footnote.
We know more about intimate violence directed at men than we did when Gelles wrote his article. But for cultural reasons, it is very difficult for male victims of domestic violence to seek help. Men are seen to be physically stronger than women, and so he should be able to just “take it.” Furthermore, domestic violence awareness campaigns are horribly one-sided, and almost always portray males as the aggressor and females as victim. Police are often hardwired to view men as the perpetrator. If a man calls 911 for help when he’s being attacked by his spouse or partner, he is often subject to arrest, even if he is the only one with physical injuries.
For seventeen years, there has been unequal treatment before the law. Female aggressors are keenly aware of this unequal justice, and a 2010 study on men who sustain abuse at the hands of their female partners discovered that 67.2% reported their female aggressors made false allegations of spousal abuse. [ii] Of those with children, 48.9% of the men reported that their partners made false allegations of child abuse.[iii] In other words, VAWA’s myopic view of who perpetrates domestic violence gives female abusers an additional avenue to torment their spouses.
The name of the Act itself makes it clear that the law’s focus is to address violence against women in particular, not the general problem of domestic violence. The specialized training that judges and law enforcement officers receive ignores the reality that women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of violence. This creates a justice system that treats male aggressors more harshly than female aggressors of the same crime.
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
ReplyDeleteRedress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS