is reform happening?

[The Dave©]

This was an interesting article in today's Sacramento Bee. Personally, I
think the guy is abusing the spirit of the 50/50 shared custody concept, and
that won't garner any sypathy or respect from courts or legislators.

My favorite was where one group advocated an "approximation test" for
custody splits instead of the "best interests of the child" doctrine. The
result would be nothing but more of the same, but with a trendy new name.
The appearance of reform without actually having to do anything. Ya gotta
love it.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7069392p-8017380c.html

[Mel Gamble]

>This was an interesting article in today's Sacramento Bee. Personally, I
>think the guy is abusing the spirit of the 50/50 shared custody concept, and
>that won't garner any sypathy or respect from courts or legislators.
>
>My favorite was where one group advocated an "approximation test" for
>custody splits instead of the "best interests of the child" doctrine. The
>result would be nothing but more of the same, but with a trendy new name.
>The appearance of reform without actually having to do anything. Ya gotta
>love it.
>
>http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7069392p-8017380c.html

Actually, the article mentioned nothing about the QUALITY of the care provided
under the approximation test, totally removing it from any semblance of "best
interests"...

Mel Gamble

[Bob Whiteside]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> >This was an interesting article in today's Sacramento Bee. Personally, I
> >think the guy is abusing the spirit of the 50/50 shared custody concept,
and
> >that won't garner any sypathy or respect from courts or legislators.
> >
> >My favorite was where one group advocated an "approximation test" for
> >custody splits instead of the "best interests of the child" doctrine.
The
> >result would be nothing but more of the same, but with a trendy new name.
> >The appearance of reform without actually having to do anything. Ya
gotta
> >love it.
> >
> >http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7069392p-8017380c.html
>
> Actually, the article mentioned nothing about the QUALITY of the care
provided
> under the approximation test, totally removing it from any semblance of
"best
> interests"...

Just more proof daycare providers should be awarded sole custody based on
the approximation test for time spent with children. Now if the brilliant
attorneys can only decide which parent gets the child custody credit for
latch key kids we'll have something to really cause child custody reform.

Want to bet the mother gets credit for children's time spent with a daycare
provider and latch key kids time spent alone at school and after school?
What a farce!

[dani]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>This was an interesting article in today's Sacramento Bee. Personally, I
>>>think the guy is abusing the spirit of the 50/50 shared custody concept,
>
> and
>
>>>that won't garner any sypathy or respect from courts or legislators.
>>>
>>>My favorite was where one group advocated an "approximation test" for
>>>custody splits instead of the "best interests of the child" doctrine.
>
> The
>
>>>result would be nothing but more of the same, but with a trendy new name.
>>>The appearance of reform without actually having to do anything. Ya
>
> gotta
>
>>>love it.
>>>
>>>http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7069392p-8017380c.html
>>
>>Actually, the article mentioned nothing about the QUALITY of the care
>
> provided
>
>>under the approximation test, totally removing it from any semblance of
>
> "best
>
>>interests"...
>
>
> Just more proof daycare providers should be awarded sole custody based on
> the approximation test for time spent with children. Now if the brilliant
> attorneys can only decide which parent gets the child custody credit for
> latch key kids we'll have something to really cause child custody reform.
>
> Want to bet the mother gets credit for children's time spent with a daycare
> provider and latch key kids time spent alone at school and after school?
> What a farce!
>
They already do. What a farce. Most, if not all orders, anymore state,
"all times not with the FATHER, shall be with the MOTHER for determining
support, etc., etc.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >This was an interesting article in today's Sacramento Bee. Personally, I
> > >think the guy is abusing the spirit of the 50/50 shared custody concept,
> and
> > >that won't garner any sypathy or respect from courts or legislators.
> > >
> > >My favorite was where one group advocated an "approximation test" for
> > >custody splits instead of the "best interests of the child" doctrine.
> The
> > >result would be nothing but more of the same, but with a trendy new name.
> > >The appearance of reform without actually having to do anything. Ya
> gotta
> > >love it.
> > >
> > >http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/7069392p-8017380c.html
> >
> > Actually, the article mentioned nothing about the QUALITY of the care
> provided
> > under the approximation test, totally removing it from any semblance of
> "best
> > interests"...
>
> Just more proof daycare providers should be awarded sole custody based on
> the approximation test for time spent with children. Now if the brilliant
> attorneys can only decide which parent gets the child custody credit for
> latch key kids we'll have something to really cause child custody reform.
>
> Want to bet the mother gets credit for children's time spent with a daycare
> provider and latch key kids time spent alone at school and after school?
> What a farce!

These are examples of the things that happen when the system is so
grotesquely distorted against fathers (carefully disguised as
"non-custodial parents").

Another similar example is the definition of a "day" for purposes of
the threshold number of days in many states' CS guidelines, after which
there is a CS reduction to take account of the amount of time the
children are with the father. In my own state, "day" is interpreted as
meaning overnight. So fathers who have the children during the day get
no reductions in the money they have to pay the mother.

I know I sound like a broken record, but these things happen (and will
continue to happen) so long as there is a glass ceiling on paternal
custody, and so long as the fathers' movement has no political clout.