|
CONFESSIONS OF A FAMILY LAW REFORM ACTIVIST
OR, HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING
AND LOVE THE PARENTING ACT
When I graduated from law school in 1987, the
Parenting Act had just been passed by the
Washington State Legislature. I began practicing
family law shortly thereafter, under the new
law. The Parenting Act introduced a
comprehensive new way to address disputes
between divorcing parents over their children.
It replaced the terms "custody" and "visitation"
with a detailed "parenting plan" addressing
residential time, decision-making and dispute
resolution. The Parenting Act was supposed to be
the end of custody battles between parents. They
were supposed to work things out, for the best
interests of their children.
Well, apparently, a whole lot of divorcing
parents didn't get the memo. Within a few years
of beginning practice, I had been involved in
numerous custody battles. Not just disagreements
between spouses, but knock-down, drag-out
custody wars with all the trappings: allegations
of child abuse, neglect, drug abuse, alcoholism,
mental problems, and that 800-pound gorilla of
them all: domestic violence.
Virtually every time I represented a father in a
parenting case, he was accused of abuse. I began
to anticipate the dreaded "crimes list," that
litany of alleged wrongs committed by my client
against the wife and children, beginning with
"he kicked me in the stomach while I was
pregnant" (15 years ago) culminating with "his
abuse is escalating," "I'm fearful for my
safety," and of course, "he's inappropriately
touching the children." It's as though these
allegations were produced by the same
scriptwriter, since so many of the buzzwords
were repeated over and over.
As I would learn later, they often were produced
by the same writers, the "battered women's
advocates," who appeared to be taking a few
extreme cases of domestic violence and applying
them across the board. Men who physically
battered their wives started by verbally
battering them, so in their twisted logic, every
man who verbally "abused" his spouse necessarily
must be physically battering her too. Women who
wanted an easy way of out a marriage, and to
assure custody of the children, eagerly signed
up for "victim's benefits." All the woman had to
do was say she was abused, and the domestic
violence advocates eagerly welcomed a new
customer. Never mind that the wife was playing
fast and loose with the real facts: she was
routinely abusing the husband and children, had
mental or substance abuse issues, and/or was
having affairs with everyone from the milkman to
the soccer coach.
It became clear to me that the Parenting Act had
been hijacked by the domestic violence industry.
The good intentions of the Act's progenitors had
been overcome by single-issue extremists. Every
factor determining the children's residential
time with each parent could be trumped by one
nearly irrefutable claim: domestic violence. And
even if domestic violence were not
determinative, fathers were still losing. The
Parenting Act, although written in
gender-neutral terms, was usually being
interpreted to favor mothers receiving primary
residential care, even when both parents were
substantially equally involved in parenting.
After several years of custody battles and
beat-dead dads as clients, I decided I had to do
something. In 1998, I co-founded a reform group
called TABS: Taking Action against Bias in the
System. TABS' goals were to eliminate gender
bias in the family law and domestic violence
system, promote shared parenting rights and
responsibilities, and reduce the incidence of
ugly divorce and custody battles.
Over the past few years, we have supported
shared parenting and friendly parenting bills in
the state legislature. Shared parenting provided
that each parent was presumptively entitled to
at least one-third of the residential time with
the children. In the eyes of the reformists,
this would avoid many of the battles over
residential time by ensuring a substantial
amount of time was afforded to the "non-primary
residential" parent.
Friendly parent would add a factor in
determining residential placement of the
children. So long as limiting factors (such as
child abuse, neglect, mental illness, substance
abuse or domestic violence) were not
determinative of the schedule, the court was
required to also consider "which parent is more
likely to allow and encourage the child frequent
and continuing contact with the other parent."
Essentially, the concept is that all other
factors being equal, placing the children with
the parent most likely to foster the children's
relationship with the other parent ensures that
the children benefit from healthy post-divorce
relationships with both parents. The 1999
Washington State Parenting Act Study, by Dr.
Diane Lye, concluded that no particular
post-divorce residential schedule was best for
children, but that high parental conflict was
the number one detriment. Friendly parent was
promoted to encourage parental cooperation and
cut down on the custody wars so often fought by
divorcing parents, replete with false
allegations of abuse, game-playing and dirty
tricks.
Several friendly parent bills have been
introduced, and different versions have passed
almost unanimously by both the House and Senate.
But despite being a reasonable bipartisan
reform, politics has prevented it from passing
both houses in the same legislative session.
Some opponents of the bill portrayed it as the
coming of the apocalypse. They claimed it was a
stealth weapon to be used against, you guessed
it, domestic violence victims, who would be
forced to share parenting time with their
abusers. Thanks to a few brave legislators who
stood up against the domestic violence
perpetrator lobby, the Parenting Act was saved
from defilement.
Other opponents claimed friendly parent would
actually increase conflict between divorcing
parents, resulting in parental one-upmanship, to
see who could be the "friendliest" parent. With
as much conflict as the system has already, why
it would be bad for parents to compete over who
could be the nicest, I could never figure out.
One famous anecdote used against friendly parent
was a mother who was judged to be "unfriendly"
because she would not let her child go see the
father immediately after the child had heart
surgery. If the mother had a statement from the
child's doctor recommending he not go anywhere,
I can't understand how she could have been
faulted.
Over the last six years, I have spent hundreds
of hours working on family law reform issues,
meeting with legislators, testifying at
committee hearings, writing letters and
articles, organizing events, talking to and
assisting people, many on a pro bono basis. Both
on a system and individual level, we have had
some successes. But looking back at our efforts
over the past few years, I now realize that I
was naive, misdirected, and even manipulated, by
the so-called family law reform movement that I
so eagerly embraced. "Family Law Reform" is just
a thinly-disguised front for the Father's Rights
Movement. I was duped into supporting this
radical agenda by greedy, controlling fathers
who just wanted out of child support payments,
and to further abuse their victims. I now see
the error of my ways. I now see the fraud that
is friendly parent. It's not about the best
interests of the children, it's about
selfishness and greed. If passed into law, it
will require thousands of mothers of children
with heart defects to be forced to send their
deathly ill children to visit their insensitive
fathers. Not to mention their no-good,
child-abusing, domestic violence-perpetrating,
non-support paying deadbeat sorry-excuse for a
parent.
"Shared parenting" is really just a code-word
for no child support. Fathers demand more time
with the children only to get residential time
credits, plummeting their child support payments
from $800.00 per month to $49.95. Then they palm
off the children, and all the costs, on the
mother. Fathers complain that the child support
table does not credit them for any direct
financial contribution towards the children even
when they have 25 per cent of the time. However,
this argument lacks any factual basis in most
cases. Since when does it cost anything to live
in a van down by the river?
Numerous studies, interviewing both men and
women, have concluded that men still don't
equally share household and childcare duties.
Toilet-plunging, gutter-cleaning, and
spider-killing and carcass disposal, while
essential household tasks, are not listed
parenting functions under the Parenting Act. Oh,
men may do a few things here and there, but
generally they're just useful idiots, waiting
for step-by-step instructions from their wives
on how to do the most basic things. They're
barely able to follow their wife's grocery list.
Dads may take the kids to daycare, but it is the
mom who researches, chooses and monitors the
provider. If it weren't for mom's meticulous
attention to every detail, dad would have the
kids babysat by the registered sex offender down
the street.
Ask a dad who the kids' doctor or dentist is,
and most likely he won't know. He might be able
to point in the vague direction of the
children's school. But ask dad for the win/loss
ratio of every team in the NFL, and he'll be
able to recite it flawlessly.
Moms plan and prepare nutritious, balanced
meals. Dads zap hot dogs in the microwave and
pop open a can of cola. They don't know fabric
softener from cough syrup. If you don't believe
me, check out most TV commercials for household
products, showing the husbands as big dummies
when it comes to even the simplest task. The
true nature of men: they wouldn't be able to
punch themselves out of a Ziploc bag to save
their lives.
Dads may buy the kids clothing occasionally, but
they'll let a 9-year old girl wear fishnet
stockings and lipstick to Sunday school. Moms
never make inappropriate wardrobe or grooming
decisions, if you don't count nose, eyebrow,
tongue, or body-piercing. Besides, Dads who
don't let their kids jump on the bandwagon of
every new fad are abusive, controlling and
punitive.
The family law reform movement, i.e. father's
rights, has tried to make the Parenting Act more
"fair" and less "biased." But the only ones ever
complaining were men, who because of the
gender-neutral language of the Parenting Act,
thought they had an equal shot at getting
custody of their children. But the Parenting
Act, with all its good intentions, can't change
the basic nature of men and women. The Parenting
Act recognized parenting functions as important
and even anticipated that men might be able to
do them once in a while. It's clear to me now,
fathers just aren't qualified to parent their
children without intense supervision by the
mothers, or some fundamental change in the
nature of men that would qualify them to be
custodial parents.
So, rather than continue a losing battle to
reform the Parenting Act to make it more
(father) friendly, I've decided that the only
way to make any progress is to change the way
fathers function, both before and during
divorce. Everything they need to get custody of
their children is right there in the Parenting
Act. It's been there all along, and women have
used it to the hilt for years. It's time for men
to stop whining about reform, step up to the
plate and show that they are just as capable of
being the best parent. There's no bias in the
system, just laziness and incompetence.
Fathers, how can you use the existing Parenting
Act to get custody of your children? Make the
Parenting Act work for you. Millions of women
have been happy to accept the benefits of the
culture of victimization. It's almost
intoxicating, being exalted, praised, and
getting all the attention, but none of the
blame. Men can get these same benefits too.
First, find your inner victim. Start seeing a
counselor who can help you recover memories of
being abused. Dig deep down into your psyche.
You were abused by your parents, siblings,
grandparents, teachers, coaches, family dog,
cat, ferret, and now, by your spouse. Wallow in
your life-long suffering. Courts love to give
custody to damaged people.
Discover the efficacy of pre-divorce tactics.
Call 911 whenever you feel "afraid" of your
spouse. Cry rape whenever she demands sex. Call
your friends and family constantly and report
her unrelenting abuse. You'll need their
declarations in court later. Get in her face and
provoke her into punching you (or just say she
did; remember no evidence is required when
you're the victim). Have her arrested and
removed from the family home, then go get a
domestic violence protection order to keep her
away.
Before you and your spouse separate, quit your
job and go on unemployment for as long as
possible. Cite job stress, nebulous medical
problems, or the need to "find yourself." Then
you can claim you are the "primary caretaker,"
assuring you can win custody over your
two-job-holding wife.
Get in touch with your feminine side. Stay home
all day and watch Oprah and Martha Stewart.
Start talking about potpourri and decoupage. For
that extra touch, start cross-dressing. Just
don't take your wife's clothes. Go buy your own.
No one will criticize your alternative
lifestyle. Have your children start calling you
"mommy." No matter what ideas your wife comes up
with, or how well she does things, constantly
criticize and demean her for her incompetence.
Complain about how she doesn't make enough
money. By the time the divorce starts, she'll be
too depressed and dejected to go for custody.
Overdraw the checking account by thousands of
dollars, then claim your wife is abusive and
controlling when she never lets you touch the
checkbook again. If you're having an affair and
get caught, immediately accuse your wife of
domestic violence. Get her arrested and tossed
out of the house. Then move your girlfriend in.
Be sure your girlfriend uses your wife's
treasured personal things and redecorates
immediately. Encourage your children to start
calling your live-in "mom." Go to their school
and take their mother off the contact card. Tell
them she is an abuser and not to let her near
the children.
Go to court and get child support from your
wife, based on when she was working two jobs to
get the family out of the mountain of debt you
helped run up. Continue to avoid employment at
all costs, and spend the child support check on
booze, gambling and internet auctions of
collectible cabbage-patch dolls.
If your true nature does come out during this
process (i.e. your intrinsic domestic violence
tendencies), all is not lost. If you slap,
scratch, bite, or knee your wife in the groin,
use one of these sure-fire excuses to evade any
consequences:
"I was only defending myself from HER abuse; I'M
the real victim here"
"She taunted me into hitting her"
"It didn't hurt her anyway"
"Lee Press-On Nails are not weapons"
Once you have obtained a protection/no-contact
order against your wife, call her constantly,
then report her to the police for violating the
order. When you can't get red wine stains from
your alcoholic binges out of the upholstery,
call your wife and sweetly ask her to come over
and help. After she has successfully gotten the
spots out, get into an argument loud enough for
the neighbors to hear, so they'll call 911 and
get her arrested. When she protests that you
invited her over, insist that she constantly
pressures you to let her come back. Remember,
you are the victim of domestic violence and can
do no wrong.
And don't worry about that pesky Rule 11 or
signing declarations under penalty of perjury.
Blatant lying is rampant in the family courts,
and never punished. Why else is it referred to
as Liar's Court or the Perjury Calendar?
If, after you have successfully thrown your wife
out of the family home, gotten her on trumped-up
domestic violence charges, and messed with her
mind, she still might try to go for shared
parenting. Not to worry. Ensure that shared
parenting will never be allowed by sabotaging
cooperation and constantly creating conflict.
Oh, and be sure to blame her for it. Even though
you've spent most of the years of your marriage
saying "Yes Dear" to your wife, now your stock
response is No, No, No. No matter what she does,
says, or wants, it's wrong. She wants more time
with the children? NO. She wants to participate
in their school and extracurricular activities?
NO. She wants to talk to them on the telephone?
NO!
Be assured that accountability of the custodial
parent is not part of this process. When the
children end up on drugs, pregnant or in jail by
the age of 15, you still get to blame the
non-custodial parent. Just repeat the mantra
that if it weren't for her years of child abuse
and domestic violence, the children wouldn't
have turned out that way. If things get really
bad, agree to sign custody over to her, but on
condition that you don't have to pay child
support.
So, there you have it. There's absolutely
nothing whatsoever wrong with the Parenting Act
as it exists today. You can get anything you
want. You just have to know how to use it to
your advantage. Reform anyone?
|
Copyright © 2006-2011 Lisa Scott. All Rights Reserved.
|
