documentating my letter to the NY Times about move-aways

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/nyregion/08custody.html?ex=1093012192&ei=1&en=d90eca86d5a04ab8

[news-digests/news-digests = signon info]

Suddenly and finally, our [custody/visitation] issues are being headlined in the news!!!!

Personally I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront as the BLISTERING custody issue in America is [has] becoming increasingly one-sided [against non-custodial parents, and fathers in particular] as you duly noted in your article. [80% of physical custody being awarded to mothers.] It is highly commendable to finally see this ballooning issue featured on the FRONT PAGE of The NY Times involving “move-aways”.

To read the new draft of SB 730 in California:
http://accama.org/SB730.php

However, along with this congratulations I must admit that your article seemed to be slightly unbalanced in its reporting [and use of wording] with phrases such as this:

”…. But now mothers with physical custody say they feel trapped in untenable situations…”

And

“…forcing mothers – who about 80 percent of the time have physical custody of children – to remain in the same city. And more mothers are fighting back.”

Your choice of wording seems to automatically presume that millions of single and divorced fathers [and noncustodial parents] are not being marginalized and served unreasonable judgments by the courts and the DSS [child support] after separation. Certainly, we must also consider the matter of the escalating alienation and outright unconstitutional infringements fathers and noncustodial parents are facing within Family Courts all across the country. [Undoubtedly not limited to the U.S.]

For instance:
Man ordered to pay pet support:
http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_petsupport20040809

Furthermore concerning this statement:
“It decided that the parent with physical custody has the right to choose the child’s residence, unless the other parent can show some detriment to the child.”

Is it not detrimental to a child for them to be forced to be separated, leave and/or alienate either parent?

And this statement:
“….judges technically do not have jurisdiction over the parents’ right to move…….”

Nor should judges have jurisdiction over how parents care for and nurture their children.

And lastly this statement:
“(Noncustodial parents can move without dealing with the court at all.)”

This particular statement disturbed me slightly because it assumes that noncustodial parents are the antagonistic and negative influence in custody disputes, when in reality this could not be further from the truth. Quite a majority of these noncustodial parents have been forced [sometimes illegally] into this “situation” by Family Court Judges across the nation. In reality, noncustodial parents within the courts have minimal rights, if any.

Custodial parents rarely become the victims in custody cases in comparison to that of noncustodial parents [mostly fathers], especially after being forced into accepting a Family Court Judge’s decision that is unreasonable [whereas a father will receive minimal “visitation”…..two weekends=4 days a month……., which is not suitable for most fathers, especially me]. Unfortunately, there is rarely any legal recourse a noncustodial parent has after such a decision. Evidently it seems that the prevalent attitude and inequitable consensus is based on the rebuttable assumption that a child should automatically be entrusted to the mother [Custodial Parent] regardless of the circumstances, as is referenced in the story below:

Favoring mom w/ felony drug charges:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/living/9321740.htm

Dr. Wallerstein’s argument that “…[the] most important things for children after divorce were that their relationship with their custodial parent was protected and that their wishes were heard” is just more proof of the absurdity of the injustice that exist and is perpetuated by those who do not wish for equal treatment guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Her argument is essentially telling us that the custodial parent should disregard any opinions and/or parental rights of the other parent.

Doesn’t this sound utterly outrageous from an objective point of view?

An enormous amount of documented research suggests that shared and equal parenting is invaluable to a child’s mental, social and psychological well being as they are growing up. Isn’t this in the best interests of the child and both parents?