Arkansas recognizes share and equal parenting .

Arkansas has improved its legislation to allow for equal time sharing in child custody cases. It still leaves a great deal of discretion in the judges hands but is a clear step in the right direction.  Also note the simplicity of the language as opposed to C-422, our former PMB.

State of Arkansas As Engrossed: S3/21/13

89th General Assembly

A Bill  

Regular Session, 2013 SENATE BILL 901

By: Senators J. Woods, J. English

By: Representatives Lowery, Alexander, Neal, E. Armstrong, Baine, Ballinger  

For An Act To Be Entitled  

AN ACT CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY PRESUMPTIONS IN 9 DIVORCE CASES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  

Subtitle 13

CONCERNING CHILD CUSTODY PRESUMPTIONS IN DIVORCE CASES.  

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A), concerning awarding child custody, is amended to read as follows:  

(a)(1)(A)(i) In an action for divorce, the award of custody of a child of the marriage shall be made without regard to the sex of a parent but  solely in accordance with the welfare and best interest of the child.

  

(ii) In determining the best interest of the child,  the court may consider the preferences of the child if the child is of a  sufficient age and mental capacity to reason, regardless of chronological age.

(iii) In an action for divorce, an award of joint  custody is favored in Arkansas.

SECTION 2. Arkansas Code § 9-13-101(a), concerning awarding child custody, is amended to add an additional subdivision to read as follows:  

(5) As used in this section, "joint custody" means the  approximate and reasonable equal division of time with the child by both parents individually as agreed to by the parents or as ordered by the court.

 As Engrossed: S3/21/13 SB901 2 03-08-2013 09:25:26 SAG239

SECTION 3. Arkansas Code § 9-13-101(b)(1)(A), concerning joint custody, is amended to read as follows:  

(b)(1)(A)(i) When in the best interests interest of a child, custody shall be awarded in such a way so as to assure the frequent and continuing  contact of the child with both parents consistent with subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section.

(ii) To this effect, the circuit court may consider awarding joint custody of a child to the parents in making an order for custody.

(iii) If, at any time, the circuit court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one (1) parent demonstrates a pattern of willfully creating conflict in an attempt to disrupt a current or pending 13 joint-custody arrangement, the circuit court may deem such behavior as a  material change of circumstances and may change a joint custody order to an order of primary custody to the nondisruptive parent.

(iv) Child support under a joint custody order is  issued at the discretion of the court and shall:  

(a) Be consistent with Administrative Order 19 No. 10 - Child Support Guidelines; or  

(b) Deviate from Administrative Order No. 10 -  Child Support Guidelines as permitted by the rule.  

/s/J. Woods

APPROVED: 04/11/2013 27 

Why do Bar Associations oppose shared/equal parenting?

There are several consistencies in any jurisdiction in the English speaking world when equal parenting is under discussion.

State, Provincial and National Bar Associations will oppose it. Feminist Lawyers, particularly in Canada, will write briefs to oppose it. The Domestic Violence Industry will raise all kinds of myths about how dangerous dads are. (The latter is very interesting because it is moms most likely to maltreat or kill their children in the US).

Evidence also shows DV is near equal in Canada. Recent studies in the US show, in some cases related to non-reciprocal violence the female will instigate it in over 70% of cases, http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137

According to Statistics Canada's latest social survey in 2009, A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.

The Daily summary:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm

The points raised by SherryNE are also used as excuses. Kids who love both parents adapt quickly to changes. In some cases where parents truly put their children first they switch while the children stay put. Others ensure they live close by so friends and schools remain the same.

Loving parents want what is best for the children. Selfish parents find any excuse they can to control their ex's. Children are the ultimate weapon. All jurisdictions should recognize the best interests of children is to keep both fit parents in their lives. If the old memes of abuse arise then substantive proof should be produced. Eliminating a parent is one of the most emotionally unhealthy things that can happen to children yet dads are marginalized as visitors in Canada in over 90% of cases giving mom sole physical custody and over 80% in the US.

It is a form of gender apartheid and needs to stop.

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-view-why-does-nebraska-state-bar-oppose-shared-parenting/article_14378fbd-72be-54b5-86f3-f704743bfb1c.html

Local View: Why does Nebraska State Bar oppose shared parenting?

BY LES VESKRNA(3) Comments

More than three dozen medical studies indicate that shared parenting arrangements after divorce – joint decision making and near-equal parenting time -- provide the best outcomes for children. These studies also show that every-other-weekend parenting time arrangements, which are commonly ordered by Nebraska judges, are harmful to children.

Shared parenting reform bills have been introduced in the Unicameral every year for the past several years. Despite the strong consensus in the mental health literature in favor of shared parenting, the Nebraska State Bar Association has opposed every shared parenting reform bill. You might ask what vital interest of lawyers causes the NSBA to oppose these bills.

Shared parenting laws have been shown to reduce the level of conflict between parents. This is important because conflict between parents creates an enormous amount of stress for the kids, which can lead to emotional and medical problems. However, lawyers like conflict because it gives them things to fight about and increases their fees. Lawyers dislike shared parenting laws because it reduces their fees. Shared parenting -- good for kids, bad for lawyers.

Is this why the NSBA opposes shared parenting proposals time and time again? The NSBA has been asked numerous times to make a proposal -– any proposal -– to help kids caught in custody disputes but they haven’t offered any. Not one.

Shared parenting laws reduce the ability of parents to use kids as leverage in property and child support disputes. One of the more unseemly aspects of family law is the buying and selling of children. This usually takes the form of “You want more time with the kids, then you need to increase my child support.” In extreme cases, one parent may abduct the kids or deny access to them unless the other parent agrees to make a payment. While rarely discussed outside the court house, the buying and selling of children is a routine part of Nebraska divorces. Shared parenting laws treat kids as human beings instead of chattel that can be bought and sold. By making it harder to buy and sell kids, shared parenting makes it harder for one parent to extort property from the other. Shared parenting -- good for kids, bad for lawyers.

Shared parenting laws reduce the incidence of divorce. According to the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, "two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. [However,] in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower." One study found shared parenting was associated with a lowering of divorce rates in 19 states surveyed. Divorce is extremely harmful to children and reducing divorce rates would improve outcomes for many children. However, it would also reduce the need for divorce lawyers. Shared parenting -- good for kids, bad for lawyers.

Shared parenting provides the best outcomes for kids. Isn’t it time the Nebraska State Bar Association put the kids first?

Dr. Les Veskrna is a Lincoln family physician and executive director of the Children’s Rights Council.

Earl Silverman's Suicide

Earl was a persistent force over the years in lobbying governments at all levels to obtain funding for male victims of DV. He ran into brick walls from each level of government who are, to this day, in denial the problem even exists. Part of this denial is from entrenched feminists working for these governments or those who receive government funding, otherwise they would not be able to find jobs based on their Wymen's Studies degrees. One of the fears of feminists is if male DV victimization is recognized they believe their cause will be diminished.

One of the sad components of Earl's efforts is the stats are on his side.

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

"Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women."

The Daily summary:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm

There are over 550 DV shelters for women in Canada with 10's of millions of tax dollars to support them. Given the statistical evidence it is pretty clear governments are overlooking big problems with DV as well as Family Law in general which favour females. Moms get over 90% of sole physical custody marginalizing dads.

An average of 8 men kill themselves every day of the year in Canada. If this were the flu it would be considered a pandemic. Many of these deaths are related directly to the marginalization of men who are supposedly able to overcome these obstacles all by themselves. Men are strong but not super heroes. Many can be broken by a variety of factors including having to live in your vehicle because most of the income goes to your ex for spousal and child support.

RIP Earl, we had our own differences but in the passionate realm of human rights there was always respect for the importance of different battles within the movement. I have a passion for equal parenting, allowing children to love and be with both parents, yours was males victimized by both DV and a system who wouldn't believe it is a problem.