The Broken Custody Court System: Is There Reason for Hope?
The custody court system, which determines the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities following a separation or divorce, is often criticized for being dysfunctional, inconsistent, and emotionally taxing for families. In its current form, it can feel like a battleground where children’s best interests are sometimes overlooked in favor of procedural rules, biases, and adversarial dynamics. Yet, despite its many flaws, there are signs that change is possible, and a growing body of reform efforts is working to transform the system for the better.
Why the Custody Court System Is Broken: The Challenges Families Face
The custody court system’s problems are well-documented and manifest in various ways, causing significant emotional and financial hardship for parents and children alike.
1. Bias and Gender Stereotyping
Historically, courts have favored mothers in custody disputes, reflecting traditional gender roles and expectations. While progress has been made, biases still persist in many cases. For example, fathers may find themselves at a disadvantage when seeking custody, especially in the absence of concrete evidence that they are unfit parents. This can lead to unbalanced custody arrangements that do not serve the best interests of the child.
The bias doesn’t only go one way. Sometimes mothers can face negative assumptions about their parenting abilities, especially in cases where the father has greater financial resources or where the mother is seen as “too emotional” or incapable of balancing work and caregiving duties.
2. Overly Adversarial Nature of Custody Disputes
In a typical custody battle, each parent is positioned as the opponent to the other. This adversarial approach can turn parents against each other, often resulting in a “win-lose” scenario that is harmful to all involved, particularly the children. Instead of working toward a cooperative solution, parents may engage in lengthy and costly legal battles, with the court acting as the final arbiter. The conflict-driven nature of the system can escalate hostilities and hinder co-parenting, making it difficult for parents to collaborate in the long term.
Additionally, high-conflict custody disputes often result in lengthy court cases that drain financial resources and create emotional scars that persist long after the case is settled.
3. Delay and Overburdened Courts
Family courts across the country are backlogged, which means that many custody cases experience long delays before a final decision is made. Delays can exacerbate already stressful situations, leaving children caught in limbo while the courts process paperwork and review evidence. Parents, especially those who may already be financially struggling, face mounting legal fees while waiting for a resolution.
In some jurisdictions, it may take months or even years for a custody arrangement to be finalized, all the while the children’s lives are in a state of uncertainty. This lack of expedience in decision-making harms families and prevents children from receiving the stability and consistency they need.
4. Inconsistent Rulings and Lack of Clear Guidelines
Family courts often rely on subjective interpretation when determining custody, leading to inconsistent rulings that vary by jurisdiction, judge, and even the individual circumstances of a case. Without uniform guidelines or standards, parents may find themselves in a system where outcomes seem arbitrary and unpredictable.
5. Lack of Focus on Children’s Best Interests
While the stated goal of the custody court system is to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the child, this principle is often sidelined by the procedural aspects of the system. Many parents report that the courts fail to take a child-centered approach, focusing more on the rights of the parents rather than the actual needs of the children involved.
The emotional and psychological well-being of children can sometimes take a back seat to legal technicalities, leading to situations where children are placed in unstable or unsatisfactory living arrangements simply because they align with the court’s interpretation of "fair" or "equal" distribution of custody time.
Is There Hope for Reform?
Despite the many problems facing the custody court system, there are several reasons for hope. Legal experts, social workers, and advocacy groups are pushing for reforms that could lead to a more balanced, child-focused, and less adversarial process. Here are some of the changes that are gaining momentum:
1. Shared Parenting and Presumptive Joint Custody
Many experts believe that shared parenting, where both parents have equal responsibility and access to their children, is often the most beneficial arrangement for children. Research supports the idea that children thrive when they have both parents actively involved in their lives, provided both are fit and capable of caring for them.
In some states and jurisdictions, there is growing support for presumptive joint custody laws. These laws assume that both parents should have equal time with their children unless one can prove that shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest. By moving away from the "primary caretaker" model and encouraging equal parenting time, the court system could reduce the inherent biases that favor one parent over the other.
2. Emphasis on Mediation and Collaborative Divorce
Rather than focusing on courtroom battles, some jurisdictions are emphasizing mediation and collaborative divorce approaches, which encourage parents to work together to reach an agreement on custody arrangements. Mediation offers a neutral third-party professional who can help parents communicate more effectively, avoid escalating conflicts, and create customized solutions that prioritize the well-being of the child.
In collaborative divorce processes, both parents and their attorneys agree to negotiate and reach a settlement without going to court. This approach tends to be less adversarial, more cost-effective, and generally quicker than traditional court proceedings, allowing for more amicable co-parenting relationships after the divorce is finalized.
3. Better Training for Judges and Legal Professionals
There is growing recognition that family law judges and attorneys need specialized training in child development, mental health issues, and conflict resolution. Child-centered decision-making is a key focus in some training programs, with the goal of helping professionals make decisions that prioritize the long-term well-being of children.
Additionally, many jurisdictions are working to improve domestic violence training for judges and attorneys, as this is an area where there is often a lack of understanding about how abuse impacts children and parenting capabilities.
4. Parental Alienation and Children’s Voice
Another area of reform involves addressing parental alienation, where one parent deliberately undermines the relationship between the child and the other parent. Courts are increasingly recognizing the detrimental effects of this behavior and are making efforts to address it within custody decisions.
There is also a growing movement to ensure that the voices of children are heard in custody proceedings. Many courts are now allowing children to express their preferences, depending on their age and maturity level. This can ensure that the child’s perspective is taken into account and that decisions reflect their actual desires, not just the parents’ desires.
5. Online and Remote Court Proceedings
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential for online hearings and remote proceedings, which can reduce delays and make the court system more accessible for families. For parents who live in remote areas, have work schedules that make attending in-person hearings difficult, or are dealing with transportation barriers, remote hearings can speed up the process and reduce stress.
Conclusion: Is There Reason for Hope?
While the custody court system is undeniably broken in many respects, there are encouraging signs that reform is on the horizon. With a growing focus on shared parenting, mediation, better judicial training, and the psychological well-being of children, there is a genuine opportunity to improve the way custody decisions are made.
Parents, advocates, and legal professionals are pushing for changes that would make the process less adversarial, more efficient, and, most importantly, more focused on what is best for the children involved. As these reforms gain traction, there is hope that future generations of children will be able to navigate their parents' separation with greater stability, less emotional turmoil, and a greater chance for healthy relationships with both parents.
In the end, while the custody court system is far from perfect, the efforts underway to address its flaws suggest that there is indeed reason for hope. The challenge lies in continuing to push for these changes and ensuring that children’s best interests remain at the heart of every decision.
About "Time's Up!"
Attorney, Author, Advocate for Mothers Without Custody, and Victims of Domestic Violence
I hate these stories with a passion while feeling deeply honored that protective mothers trust me enough to share them with me.
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?
It'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
A Support and Advocacy blog for Protective Parents and innocent Children harmed by wrongdoing under the color of law, the Family Law and CPS Industries. We investigate where the media can't or won't go.
ReplyDeleteThe people "have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good." In Keeping with the Constitution, Blind Bulldog is committed to serving the common good in Shasta County.
The following, brilliant take is from a Blind Bulldog affiliate from Southern Cal:
"The untethered aggression of family courts is due to a vacuum of institutional client advocacy--unlike criminal courts, which have firmly-established constitutional rights, strict state and federal oversight of state court judges, and a dedicated “criminal defense bar” to thwart government aggression, or civil courts that have “plaintiffs'” and “defense” bars to balance one another’s private agendas, family court has no “litigant bar.” The divorce attorneys themselves favor aggression for the simple reason identified in the movie--follow the money. Attorneys have not filled that vacuum to defend their own clients, leaving them vulnerable to the natural tendency of government to intrude. Family court litigants are, sad to say, woefully unaware of what they’re up against, and the body count shows results that are entirely predictable--but we think preventable.
Family court was created by lawyers and judges--literally--rather than the citizens it should be protecting. We’ve located the history through testimony and other documentation showing something like a Jekyll Island series of “off the record” meetings between California judges, attorneys, and bureaucrats in the 90’s to “set up” family court to their liking, then seeking what became essentially a rubber stamp granting unheard of discretion from the California legislature. This system is now unfortunately the model or trend for many states--hence our nationwide membership and approach. Citizens had virtually no input and maintain no control.
Federal courts have observed unusually broad adaptations of “federalism,” “comity,” “standing,” and “abstention” legal doctrines to leave the vacuum unoccupied by otherwise ordinary protections of federal rights for individual citizens and legal consumers. Litigants themselves are outmatched in organization--they’re a revolving door commodity. No one wants to stick around long enough to enforce reform. Hence rampant abuse in a lop-sided system of foxes guarding the henhouse, and you and I are on the ever-expanding menu."
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood 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."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
"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.