From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Effects on children of divorced parents
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:07:22 CST

In article FTy3wB7w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD) writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, one of the most cited studies is Wallerstein's study
>> which helped to blast the joint custody presumption out of California.
>> It essentially says that when parents are in conflict joint custody is
>> bad, and that parents are usually in conflict, hence joint custody is
>> bad, etc...
> 
>May I add to Anne's post that this study is in conflict with a great
>number of studies, all of which were empiracal in nature, where the
>Wallerstien devoted a great deal of it's conclusions to personal op-
>ines and value judgements.
>
>Which see:
>
>> I say unfortunately because what few people know is that the entire
>> study was based on a survey of only about *60* divorcing couples [not a
>> very big population], in *Marin* county [not a community terribly
>> representative of the general populice], and with *NO* control group [I
>> assume no comment is necessary here].  Furthermore, the couples were
>> self-selecting in the most prejudicial of ways...they got their
>> participants by running an ad in a local publication, offering *free*
>> couples counselling to couples in divorce situations who would
>> participate in the study.  Now, what sorts of couples are likely to
>> avail themselves of counselling in a divorce situation?  You got
>> it..couples in conflict.
>
>You should see where Hillary Clinton got her info. :-(
>
>> Yet, this study is cited over and over, and, as I mentioned, played a
>> large part in California diminishing the joint custody presumption.
>
>Fortunately, Washington state discarded it. We're pressing towards a
>default shared parenting circumstance. (RCW Title 29 states clearly 
>that a refusal to join in shared parenting, absent clear and undeniable
>proof of potential or ongoing harm to the child/ren, shall on it's face
>be evidence for that individual's disqualification as a custodial parent.)
>Not everyone is bought into Wallerstein. Fortunately.
>
>---
>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA


  These "studies" quoted by feminist to perpetuate their overwhelming
family court bias are what make the Wllerstein studies as well as 
countless others suspect. The academic community championing social
reform through 'studies' is only the result of narrow minded self
proclaimed victim's group like "women studies". What passes for 
thesis, studies and long mumbo jumbo high school level papers in 
the academic community for PH.Ds. is astonishing. The Children's
Defense Fund is one such powerful social welfare special interest
group who have for years advocated government monies to support
every academically conceivable program for women, in the name of 
children. 
 They substitute opinion for fact. (Rettig Study, Wellerstein Study)
 They substitute personal responsibility for legislation.
 They advocate draconian child support measures that mock our
  constitution and then shout continously about keeping the government
  out of their womb. This double standard reeks so bad it gave 
  Gloria Steinham a tit enlargement without the need for surgery.
 They advocate programs for others what they wouldn't do.

So here you have it Bob. The Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force for
Gender Fairness in the Courts was nothing more than a farce. This
so-called report is filled with suspect and in some cases undeniable
idiotic 'studies' to perpetuate the overwhelming bias in family
court. Draconian family law practices in Mn can only be credited 
to study that was overwhelmed by so-called experts. 

 It is important to my future to point out the absurdity in 
in what passes as 'social studies'. The proof is often in the pudding.

 Government mandated policies for the middle class at our expense is
the Clinton theme. Is it any wonder that Chelsea Clinton is going
to attend school with the Childrens Defense Fund director's brat?

Hell no! No surprise here.  


 When I talked to the Lenore Weitzman on the phone to question her
study, (women see a dramatic decrease in their income, 73% drop) and
men see an increase of 45%), I asked her how this was possible when
child support is factored in. She didn't have an answer, but continued
to quote studies of studies that showed this. When I asked her that
mandatory child support garneshment of wages and the percentages
that accompanied them makes her quote seem absurd, she agreed, But
would never admit it publicly. She couldn't explain the differences.
She is another women's studies product who is as objective about her
work as Saddam Huessain is on his military strategy with his people.

Jon