Joint custody might become standard practice in Mississippi divorce cases come July 1 if State Representative Shane Aquirre (R - La Vino) has his way.
Mr. Aquirre introduced SB# 1662. The bill would greatly change how custody is awarded in Mississippi. The bill states:
(2) * * * (a) (i) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court grants joint custody and equally shared parenting time, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensures the best interest of the child is met. (ii) The presumption created in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. A court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption. (b) To calculate child support for joint custody with equally shared parenting time, unless the court determines a deviation from this paragraph is in the best interest of the child, the court shall: (i) Calculate a child-support award under the guidelines of Section 43-19-101 for each parent as if each parent was the obligor; (ii) Calculate the difference in the two (2) awards by subtracting the lesser award from the larger award; and (iii) Order the difference in the two (2) awards to be paid by the parent who has the higher adjusted gross income to the parent with the lower adjusted gross income. (c) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent without documenting a reason for deviation.
Only five states have a similar law. History and text of bill. The bill went to conference and was returned to both chambers where it awaits approval.
A local attorney penned this little informal op-ed for this website:
I see both sides of this argument. I see where it may be fairer to men, but I can see how it can be detrimental to the best interest of a child.
As a child of divorced parents, the court system strongly favored women. My dad ended up with custody in 2008 of me and I saw a shift in father's rights during that time. I say that because I can speak on this not only as a practitioner but on a personal level.
I see where it's appealing to men. I also see potential issues with the violent parent aspect of the law. I can see how woman might start screaming abuse and abuse to prevent the presumption of 50/50 custody. BUT we already have the violent parent presumption in our statutes. I have seen cases on both sides where women make false accusations to get a “leg up” in chancery court but I have also seen true physical abuse on mother and dad trying to get full custody. It cuts both ways.
In the state of Mississippi, the case of Albright v. Albright is how an initial custody determination if determined. Albright is a set of 12 factors that the Court reviews to determine who should have custody of a child. But, those factors are viewed in the light of the best interest of the minor child(ten). The Albright factors are not perfect. And often times the continuity of care factor holds the vast majority of the weight, which typically favors a mom over a dad.
I think it's a start towards recognizing that moms and dads have equal roles in a child's life but I wish that it wouldn't be a true presumption because some dads only want joint custody to avoid child support. I also do not like how the bill is attempting to amend the child support guidelines.
I hate math and the way we have it now works, it's easy and simple. Like I said Albright isn't perfect but it's so far the best we have to look at the best interest of the child and not the best interest of the parents.
So I think instead of a bill, I wish the appellate courts would add more factors to Albright like: history of family involvement (because while a dad may not be the primary caregiver under Albright a dad may be heavily involved in his child’s lives). I wish our courts would also change standard visitation to Thursday to Mondays for noncustodial parents.
I just see too many issues with this and most lawyers in the legal system wish that we would have been consulted prior to this bill being introduced.
Attorney Danielle Banks warned of more litigation if the bill becomes law:
14 comments:
this is not a good bill. The "Albright" factors probably work best in most cases, and this bill would not serve the best interest of the child b/c if the court is going to decide custody, then the court needs to truly accept the burden of the best interest of the child. Children need stability first and foremost, and if both parents can show they can work together, but apart from each other, then joint should be considered
I AM 110% for this bill. Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia and Florida already have it on the books. Gentlemen do not fall for the scare tactics of domestic violence like that is the norm. That is not the norm for divorce! This bill is eviscerating the "irreconcilable differences" or "I'm bored" as a reason to break up the family. This is my first time saying thank you to Kentucky but THANK YOU KENTUCKY for being the first state in the UNION to pass this bill in 2018 now we see the ripple effect. Only folks that will be upset are women who will be forced unleash some control and the CHANCERY COURT Judes and Attorneys who stand to lose a lot of money.
It will be terrible for military parents. Especially if they live in different states. Imo. Of course some parents deserve ZERO custody.
One size doesn’t fit all. This is an unwise course of action that exceeds the tasks legislators should actually be doing.
I can’t speak to the solution of adding more factors to Albright, as that doesn’t seem to be a bad idea.
Has favoring the mom created a situation where there are more kids being raised without a Dad?
Do Dads become resentful that they don’t get the opportunity to be able to come home to their child and get a hug from a smiling toddler?
Does starting at 50/50 increase Dad’s involvement from the start? Could this help those “fatherless” kids actually have some role models? Would it encourage more “men” to grow up?
I think it was Wordsworth that had the quote, “The Child is father of the Man.”
This country is made to have states test and find the best way of doing things. Returning a father’s role/involvement from the beginning may make for a better society.
I’d have to think Shad preached this in his awfully worded report years ago on “fatherless” homes.
In our American culture, we place so much emphasize on being a Father. We do not a demand that he is the Father of The Year, but that he simply fulfills the minimum expectation. That expectation alone is an exceedingly high bar that a Father need not complain about. Yet, in the last 40 plus years in our State, Chancellors have made Father's nothing more than glorified uncles. While at the same time demanding financial obligation for that which you only see on the first and third weekend (four days a month). Most cases you can't even get the child's grades from school or even have a say about the course of the child's medical treatment. I praise this bill!! To God be the Glory!!!
There are many instances where 100%/0% is in order.
One size doesn’t fit all.
If so then why default to maternal custody?
Big Divorce is doomed if this passes. I hope it passes
Children should go to the parent who is the best provider. Giving a kid to an unemployed or indebted mom just because she has a vagina, and then taking the father’s paycheck is just dumb. Vain, impulsive shoppers are incapable of managing a family budget. Best to give the father (and his new wife) custody. Most high value, high earning men will easily find a new wife after they divorce the lazy adulterous whore.
I don't understand the concern with this bill. It creates a rebuttable presumption which means a parent who does not think the other parent is suitable for equal parenting time can put on evidence to prove the presumption should be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. This is NO different than what happens now when both parents seek custody or one parent seeks joint custody and the other disagrees. It also does not modify the child support calculation. In cases where a court orders joint custody now, they already do what this bill requires. (caveat: when parties agree to joint custody it is not uncommon for the parties to agree no child support will be paid by either parent). What this bill does do is make a parent who does not want joint custody really ask themselves why they oppose joint custody. If the opposition is legitimate and based on evidence, then they should not hesitate to oppose it. If the opposition is based more on preference or motivated by spite, then this bill would potentially help avoid frivolous litigation. In other words, if a parent opposing joint custody does not have evidence to prove the other parent is not fit for joint custody, they should voluntarily agree to joint custody unless they want to spend a lot of money in attorney fees fighting a fight they will lose.
If the archaic thought process of most Mississippi Chancery Judges rules (and I submit it does), and this would force judges to award joint custody where practicable, why oppose it?
Custody to the wife and periodic time spent with dad has for too long been the standard.
Albright, one size doesn't fit all, military parents, it's always easy to find a reason -- an excuse, really -- not to do something. But children, especially the boys, need their father in their lives somewhere sometime. Let the scales of justice for once, then, balance even a little more toward the favor of fathers.
Disagree. It is emotionally charged because it levels the playing field after decades of women having advantage. That is all. The Legislature is right with this bill - children don't ask to be born, and both parents are equally accountable. So, ladies - you say you want equality - then ya better start to cooperate.
Post a Comment