Joint Custody Bill - Michigan, USA

EPC COMMENT: do the opposing arguments sound familiar at all? Definitely, but in UK "noncustodial parents" do not even enjoy a presumption of ANY custody or contact!!! As a result, too many UK parents don't even get to see their kids.

Cory D. Mackwood: Joint custody bill should receive speedy approval

The Committee on Family and Children Services of the Michigan House of Representatives soon will debate HB 5267, introduced last October by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton.
This proposed legislation would require a "presumption of joint physical custody" after divorce unless a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to care for their child. It makes an exception if a parent doesn't reside in the child's school district and cannot maintain the child's present schedule.

Michigan Family Courts apply a custody standard designed in 1970 that requires both parents agree to joint physical custody or it is deemed unmanageable. Ask yourself how likely it is that some parent(s) may withhold this agreement solely to deny equal custody to the other parent?
HB 5267 has stirred many organizations to use scare tactics to assert that this bill is wrong for Michigan and its children. They remind us of abusive noncustodial parents that would "gain access" to the other parent. HB 5267 wouldn't support this kind of parent as joint physical custodian.

Critics of HB 5267 claim that noncustodial parents want joint physical custody to reduce child support and to rob our children of needed money.
Forget the vileness of this assertion; HB 5267 makes no change to the current child support formula.

Lawyers opposing HB 5267 assert that it will take discretion from judges. HB 5267 doesn't take discretion from judges; it replaces 1970 standards with 2006 standards. It will, however, reduce litigation since many motions involve enforcing noncustodial parental rights being violated.

These special interest groups misrepresent HB 5267. By playing to the pessimist in mankind, they believe they can scare us into leaving things the same.
They do that not in the best interest of children or even the abused parent they purport to represent. They do that in their own best interest.

HB 5267 creates a standard of equality, and assumes both parents want and deserve to be equal in the child's life even after divorce. It also assumes that our children want and would benefit from this equality, absent evidence to the contrary.
Is this really a revelation? Over 85 percent of Michigan residents asked say joint physical custody should be the standard.

Grown adults who are products of divorce say divorce was made more difficult for them because they didn't have "equal time" with both parents.
Are there bad people who will attempt to take advantage of the system? Yes, there are.
Are there bad people that already take advantage of the present system? Yes, there are.
Children need both parents. Parents deserve the right to equal parenting without having to get permission from the other parent - permission that in all too many cases is withheld as a punishment.

It's not 1970 anymore. HB 5267 would create equality. Equality for our children and equality for parents who never intended and don't deserve to divorce their children.
HB 5267: It's about children; it's about fairness; it's about time.