From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Finally, action (Re: Massachusetts gets tou
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:06:00 CST

Aaron Hoffmeyer, 

Ariticle sections deleted for brevity..

At the same time (during the late 70s), this group and several other
father's right groups around the state actively sought to have a joint
custody law adopted by Ohio, in the same manner as the joint custody
law that was adopted in California in 1976 or '77.  However, at the
last minute, the law was watered down a great deal.  It included the
clause that stated something like, "if either parent does not want
joint custody, the judge shall not award joint custody."  In effect,
joint custody did not become reality.  It was a whitewash.  It was
rarely, hardly ever, awarded to anyone.


  This looks just like the STUPID logic applied in the Federal Law
covering the IRS dependents: 

  If the CP (Momma) wishes to fill out a form and sign it, DAD could
get the dependent credit on his taxes. I have always asked to receive
the dependent credit for ONE of our two children under the presumption
that 30% of my after tax income is at least 50% of the cost of 
raising the children. I think it is really around 80% in my case. 
Just another typical CP advantage. 
********************************************************
   From the Willian Mitchell Law Review, Mn Supreme Court Task Force on
Gender Fairness in the Courts, Volume 15 No. 4

  Professor Carol Bruch of the MLK Jr. School of Law at UCAL Davis, comments
that, "although proponents of join custody argue that joint custody enhances
both paternal involvement and paternal financial support, reshearch results
do not as yet support these claims." She notes the "growing consensus in 
research literature that disapproves of joint custody orders that are 
entered into over the objection of one parent."
     Bruch, And How are the Children? The Effects of Ideology and Mediation
  on Child Custody Law and Children's Well-being in the United States, 2 Int'l
J.L. & Fam. 106, 109 (1988).
*****************************************************

  More from the Mn Law review...

  "Family law judges and attorneys have good reason to be concerned. The 
current scholarly literature indicates that, especially where court imposed,
joint custody-whether joint legal, phisical, or both-may not be in the best
interests of children, or their mothers and should be used with great caution.

 Martha Fineman, Professor of Law and Director of the Family Policy Program
of the Institute for Legal Studies at the Univ. of Wisconsin, argues that
court imposed joint custody is unfair to mothers in that it has been advocated 
by fathers' rights groups as a solution to the historic failre of non-custodial
parents-usually fathers-to pay child support:

     Joint custody ... empowers fathers as a group without requiring
     any demonstration of responsibility .. in no other area does the
     law reward those who have failed in their duties as an incentive for
     them to change their behavior.
      Fineman, Dominant Discourse, Professional Language, and Legal Change
       in Child Custody Decisionmaking, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 727, 759(1988)

************************************

 I requisted a copy of this document from a legislature in Mn. I received
a copy and began to puke violently after having read it. I still have 
problems reading it. In time, I'll copy it to the net. 

 In short, fathers have a long way to go. God help me. I just can't wait
much longer.......



Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3714 alt.dads-rights:2697 ba.seminars:715