http://feeds2.feedburner.com/CrcIdahoPodcasts/
Idaho Code Title 32, Chapter 7 reads:
"Joint physical custody" means an order awarding each of the parents significant periods of time in which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of each of the parents or parties."
further it reads
"there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children."
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=320070017B.K
Idaho law currently does not provide any guidelines which could assist judges in ordering children sufficient visitation with both parents.
A few state legislators have already agreed to address this issue and I have proposed an addition be added to Idaho Statutes Title 32 which may read similar to the following.
**** "Joint Physical custody" shall normally entitle fit parents no less than one-third of overnights annually. ****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_physical_custody
Please join me and sign this petition to show that you, too, believe one-third annual overnights law normally in the best interest of the majority of Idaho children of divorce, without causing detriment to potential exceptions in certain family situations.
If you disagree, please state your objections, and sign this petition in favor of Idaho State legislators creating a law with your consideration in mind
National Support
This law follows the lead of United States Senate resolution concurrent with the U.S. House of Representatives, "Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives."
S. CON. RES. 59 | H. CON. RES. 241
Regional Support
In Utah statute 'Joint Physical Custody': "means the child stays with each parent overnight for more than 30% of the year, and both parents contribute to the expenses of the child in addition to paying child support."
http://le.utah.gov/~code/title30/htm/30_03_001001.htm
Imperical Evidence
Leading contemporary research shows that frequent and meaningful visitation includes a minimum of 1/3 overnights and is in a child's best interest. This frequent time with both parents deters children from a host of societal problems. In addition, though it may be difficult for parents with great separations of distance to share parenting, wherever possible shared parenting is still considered in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child do indeed require continuity in a child's life, and the paramount continuity is not necessarily where the child lives, but frequent access to mother and father. Overnights with non-custodial parents are not detrimental to even infant children, but beneficial and essential.
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/overnights.php
Joan Kelley Ph.D. | Michael Lamb Ph.D
Dr. Isolina Ricci
Mom's House, Dad's House
Judge Eisenhauer - Iowa
Upholding Judicial Discretion
The proposed language of this law gives judges discretion by providing a recommended threshold that has been supported by research and advocated by U.S. congress, without limiting the amount of visitation to a mandatory minimum or maximum.
Supports Education
One third overnights annually still allows full participation in an academic school year and advocates frequent and continual weekend visitations.
Allows for Personal Liberty and Negotiation
Because there is no fixed maximum or minimum, amicable divorced parents may negotiate an alternate plan. Non-custodial parents are provided with a reasonably sufficient and uniform amount of visitation, while still being able to concede time back to the custodial parent if they consider the quantity imprudent.
Protection from Abuse
Idaho law already provides Joint Physical Custody only to fit parents, careful to consider if "one of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence."
Relief for the Courts
We believe that conciliation and mediation is more desirable than typical adversarial divorce proceedings. A statute would guide divorced parents to an objective ground where litigation is not necessary. Using the state law as a guide, parents will be empowered to mediate and mutually satisfy distinct beliefs of what is in the best interest for their children.
Please support Idaho State Legislature in creating a law which normally entitles non-custodial and custodial parents at least one third overnights with their children annually.
Also please contact our State representatives "Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives."
S. CON. RES. 59 | H. CON. RES. 241
http://feeds2.feedburner.com/CrcIdahoPodcasts/
Idaho Code Title 32, Chapter 7 reads:
"Joint physical custody" means an order awarding each of the parents significant periods of time in which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of each of the parents or parties."
further it reads
"there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children."
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=320070017B.K
Idaho law currently does not provide any guidelines which could assist judges in ordering children sufficient visitation with both parents.
A few state legislators have already agreed to address this issue and I have proposed an addition be added to Idaho Statutes Title 32 which may read similar to the following.
**** "Joint Physical custody" shall normally entitle fit parents no less than one-third of overnights annually. ****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_physical_custody
Please join me and sign this petition to show that you, too, believe one-third annual overnights law normally in the best interest of the majority of Idaho children of divorce, without causing detriment to potential exceptions in certain family situations.
If you disagree, please state your objections, and sign this petition in favor of Idaho State legislators creating a law with your consideration in mind
National Support
This law follows the lead of United States Senate resolution concurrent with the U.S. House of Representatives, "Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives."
S. CON. RES. 59 | H. CON. RES. 241
Regional Support
In Utah statute 'Joint Physical Custody': "means the child stays with each parent overnight for more than 30% of the year, and both parents contribute to the expenses of the child in addition to paying child support."
http://le.utah.gov/~code/title30/htm/30_03_001001.htm
Imperical Evidence
Leading contemporary research shows that frequent and meaningful visitation includes a minimum of 1/3 overnights and is in a child's best interest. This frequent time with both parents deters children from a host of societal problems. In addition, though it may be difficult for parents with great separations of distance to share parenting, wherever possible shared parenting is still considered in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child do indeed require continuity in a child's life, and the paramount continuity is not necessarily where the child lives, but frequent access to mother and father. Overnights with non-custodial parents are not detrimental to even infant children, but beneficial and essential.
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/overnights.php
Joan Kelley Ph.D. | Michael Lamb Ph.D
Dr. Isolina Ricci
Mom's House, Dad's House
Judge Eisenhauer - Iowa
Upholding Judicial Discretion
The proposed language of this law gives judges discretion by providing a recommended threshold that has been supported by research and advocated by U.S. congress, without limiting the amount of visitation to a mandatory minimum or maximum.
Supports Education
One third overnights annually still allows full participation in an academic school year and advocates frequent and continual weekend visitations.
Allows for Personal Liberty and Negotiation
Because there is no fixed maximum or minimum, amicable divorced parents may negotiate an alternate plan. Non-custodial parents are provided with a reasonably sufficient and uniform amount of visitation, while still being able to concede time back to the custodial parent if they consider the quantity imprudent.
Protection from Abuse
Idaho law already provides Joint Physical Custody only to fit parents, careful to consider if "one of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence."
Relief for the Courts
We believe that conciliation and mediation is more desirable than typical adversarial divorce proceedings. A statute would guide divorced parents to an objective ground where litigation is not necessary. Using the state law as a guide, parents will be empowered to mediate and mutually satisfy distinct beliefs of what is in the best interest for their children.
Please support Idaho State Legislature in creating a law which normally entitles non-custodial and custodial parents at least one third overnights with their children annually.
Also please contact our State representatives "Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives."
S. CON. RES. 59 | H. CON. RES. 241
We the undersigned request Idaho Congress to resolve the issue of a lack of clear custody laws in Idaho statutes.
Idaho Code Title 32, Chapter 7 reads:
"Joint physical custody" means an order awarding each of the parents significant periods of time in which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of each of the parents or parties.
"there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children."
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=320070017B.K
Idaho law currently does not provide any guidelines which could assist judges in ordering sufficient visitation with both parents.
We the Petitioners implore you to integrate an addendum into Idaho State Statute similar to the following:
'Joint Physical custody' shall normally entitle fit parents no less than one third overnights annually.
We believe there are not sufficient definitions in Idaho law for what is meant by "Primary" "Sole" or "Shared" physical custody. We believe ambiguity of this distinction in the law cultivates a combative environment where Secondary physical custody parents assert additional legal rights, or Primary physical custody parents conclude that the term Primary entitles them to Sole physical custody, or extra legal custody rights. Please include language that disambiguates Primary and Secondary Joint physical custody from Sole custody and visitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_physical_custody
We believe this law is in the best interest of the majority of Idaho children of divorce, without causing detriment to potential outlying family situations.
Though objections have been noted, we are in agreement that this issue must be addressed, and we ask you to consider our various input while the issue is debated.
National Support
This law follows the lead of United States Senate resolution concurrent with the U.S. House of Representatives, "Expressing the support for the enacting of joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefits of having a father and a mother in their lives."
S. CON. RES. 59 | H. CON. RES. 241
Regional Support
In Utah statute 'Joint Physical Custody' "means the child stays with each parent overnight for more than 30% of the year, and both parents contribute to the expenses of the child in addition to paying child support."
http://le.utah.gov/~code/title30/htm/30_03_001001.htm
Imperical Evidence
Leading contemporary research shows that frequent and meaningful visitation includes a minimum of 1/3 overnights and is in a childs best interest. This frequent time with both parents deters children from a host of societal problems. In addition, though it may be difficult for parents with great separations of distance to share parenting, wherever possible shared parenting is still considered in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child do indeed require continuity in a child's life, and the paramount continuity is not necessarily where the child lives, but frequent access to mother and father. Overnights with non-custodial parents are not detrimental to even infant children, but beneficial and essential.
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/overnights.php
Joan Kelley Ph.D. | Michael Lamb Ph.D
http://www.spig.clara.net/jc-faq.htm
Dr. Isolina Ricci
Mom's House, Dad's House
Judge Eisenhauer - Iowa
Anecdotal Evidence
Fathers in Idaho tell of going to great expense in Idaho Courts to maintain their rights as outlined in Idaho law, only to leave empty handed, or worse, to have removed from them visitation that was already agreed upon. The author of this petition was not able to secure joint physical custody and in seeking enforcement of a agreement stipulated with the primary parent, instead lost 2-days each week with his daughter. The judge cited these days were unreasonable and that "most" parents only get to see their kids on weekends. These observations are backed by Idaho lawyers who warn fathers and non-custodial mothers they have an uphill battle to secure their children the frequent and continual rights that are described in Idaho law. We believe these losses are the cause of many of Idaho societal problems.
Upholding Judicial Discression
The proposed language of this law still gives judges discretion by providing a recommended threshold that has been supported by research and advocated by U.S. congress, without limiting the amount of visitation to a mandatory minimum or maximum.
Supports Education
One third overnights annually still allows full participation in an academic school year and advocates frequent and continual weekend visitations.
Allows for Personal Liberty and Negotiation
Because there is no fixed maximum or minimum, amicable divorced parents may negotiate an alternate plan. Non-custodial parents are provided with a reasonably sufficient and uniform amount of visitation, while still being able to concede time back to the custodial parent if they consider the quantity imprudent or unreasonable for the best interest of the child.
Protection from Abuse
Idaho law already provides Joint Physical Custody only to fit parents, careful to consider if "one of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence"
Relief for the Courts
We believe that conciliation and mediation is more desirable than typical adversarial divorce proceedings. A statute would guide divorced parents to an objective ground where litigation is not necessary. Using the state law as a guide, parents will be empowered to mediate and mutually satisfy distinct beliefs of what is in the best interest for their children.
A Final Observation
Judges in Idaho act as an advisory to the Judiciary council through where laws like this have to be directed. While it will be important to gain judicial support for such a law, for congress to be discouraged from making this law on account of the Judges' reccommendations, may represent an environment of less benefit to Idaho consituents than a true separation of legislative and judicial powers. We believe this can be overcome by congress crafting a solution which would be acceptable to both the Judicial system and to Idaho constituents.
Please do all you can to add this language to Idaho Statute, for the best interest of Idaho Children, Idaho Court Systems and Idaho Tax payers.
NO. This petition's may appear to address the Best Interest of the Child, but the true and underlying motives have nothing to do with the Best Interests of the Child whatsoever, I am sorry to opine. Although there are opinions that reflect a child should have the influence of the other parent in their lives, which in my opinion is a VERY important and case-by-case determination, this "percentage" to be injected into the law truly has nothing to do with what every child REALLY needs, but moreso relative to the child support calculations (which go from an equal calculation between gross parent incomes to a 1.5% factor if a visiting parent is unable to get at least 30% on paper). This is about money. I see many responses from citizens who seem to assume that our society has now been forced to view divorce as a normal occurrence and as in a high proportion 'inevitable,' and I assume they may also come from a misunderstanding that the system to resolve problems post-divorce are logical, inexpensive and timely. Yes, under this misinformed assumption should likely lend and opinion that it is acceptable to just treat each child, family and divorce as a peg in a hole. This is what fuels the sickness and dysfunction that already exists within our limping system. This is not the case, and danger lies for many children in this assumption! Say you take three child age groups (for example, infancy, elementary and jr/high school ages) and plop the kids into this calculation, how exactly does this work FOR EACH CHILD? Explain that to me and I will come to the other side of this position I hold and urge you all to do more research before you make a personalized determination that will effect ALL children in Idaho. Domestic abuse is heinous. I agree. However, there are many more potentially damaging factors to consider than domestic abuse. Does that not go without saying? What about emotional abuse or alienation? One cannot be so niaive to assume that divorce occurs commonly as a milestone in life. It is a trauma to all and usually occurs for good reasons within a couple's home. A huge disparity that NEEDS to be known AND ADDRESSED within the custody and visitation dispute arena has to do with the OBLIGATIONS of the custodial parent vs. the RIGHTS of a visiting parent. Nowhere in the law does it state that once a 'caring and involved' parent who desires 30% overnights gets this on paper that anything can be done about this if they do not EXERCISE their time with the child. If they elect not to, they are held above reproach while keeping a primary parent hostage to court orders and lowered child support while not taking the time with their child. I do not state that everyone would abuse this discretion, but it is our duty as citizens to protect ALL citizens and err on the side of caution. Further, statisics may very well show that most divorced parents remarry. I would imagine perhaps men more quickly than women, but I do not have that data. Whether or not a parent can give both gender influences to a child should be held completely separate from this determination. Why? Well, for example, to simply HAVE a gender influence does not guarantee that means implicitly the child will get a GOOD gender influence. In addition, whomever it was that stated it causes for some sort of sexual acting out or problems should really cite their statistical research before assuming that to be some kind of fact. I am STRONGLY IN DISFAVOR OF CONSIDERATION OF THIS PEITION. CHILDREN WILL GET HURT. I would love for the organization that is exerting such wonderful and successful energies to something like this to find me and address something that is much more productive to our children, reform of our current system. If we can get the support and collaboration needed, children will benefit from this type of action vs. writing pat laws that may very well provide the legal basis for bad custody determinations be made. THINK OF HOW THE CHILDREN WILL FEEL, NOT THE PARENTS. Jami Porter, for taking the mockery out of Idaho's Best Interest of the Child motto and making it work for our children. Thank you for a forum for my opinion. Find more guidance at boitcidaho.org, being constructed as of 11/1/09.
This law is in the best interests of our children, and our society.
This petition doesn't address domestic violence and how it impacts the children from such a relationship. There are reasons why some parents are not awarded joint physical custody of their children.
Yes, without both parent's influece children do not learn gender roles and are more likely to develop abnormal sexual appetites.
|
2:08 am PST, Nov 24,
Philip Waters, Idaho
As a non-custodial father, I believe that 30% meets my needs as being sufficient, though it is not quite the 50% I would wish for, or the 33% that research shows is most beneficial, I believe 30% is reasonable and satisfactory. I believe this fits most cases and should be clearly acceptable as a statute for the entire State. |
