A proposed Tennessee law would make the default custody decision a court-ordered 50/50 arrangement. If enacted, the law would force a parent to prove near-criminal unfittedness in order to gain custody from the other parent.
The article — and many of the discussions around it — are filled with references to “parents’ rights.”
News flash: parents have no rights.
If we want to improve custody outcomes for children, we need to stop talking about what the parents are entitled to and talk instead about the only question that matters: What’s best for the children these people chose to bring in to the world?
We should start with a Bill of No-Rights.
DaMomma’s Parents’ Bill of No-Rights
I don’t have the right to see my child.
I have the sacred obligation to be available to her for nurture, comfort, discipline and guidance regardless of whether it is convenient for me.
I don’t have the right to be included in all the decision-making regarding my child.
I have the obligation to make my child’s needs my first priority and to evalute her needs without regard to my own stake. I have the moral duty to be the advocate of her interests, even if they may conflict with my own.
I do not have the right to make my child’s medical choices.
I have the obligation to use my status as an adult to seek out all the professional care my child needs, and to provide it. I am duty-bound to educate myself on health conditions my child has, and to advocate for her until she is able to advocate for herself.
I do not have the guaranteed love of my child.
I voluntarily made an 18-year commitment to be responsible for another person. I am owed nothing in return. My child did not ask to be born, and is not responsible for the decision I made to bring her here.
I am not entitled to respect.
I am obligated to teach my child boundaries, rules and limits — so she can function in the world, so she is tolerable to others. I have a duty to teach her how to behave. I earn my child’s respect.
My child is not an object to which I may claim ownership.
She is a human being with thoughts and feelings. My childhood is over. My time of being the priority has passed. Whatever I did or did not get is something I must address for myself. It is separate from my child. She is entitled to her own time of nurture, protection and joy and I am obligated to provide it.
I am not entitled to a return on my investment.
I am obligated to work hard every day to provide for my child’s material needs (including some of her wants) regardless of whether she sees me, likes me, or behaves in a manner of which I approve.
When both parents are equally committed to the needs of the children they have no choice but to cooperate with each other, regardless of the state of their own relationship.
I wish, oh how I wish this was the case.
My husband’s ex-wife dicks us around by using the children. I want to egg her house. He does everything she says, jumps through 5million hoops just to SEE his children. If he misses a hoop? She keeps them away. Even if they were promised he would see them. Even if they were promised a trip to our house to see their little brother.
I put those kids first and I am even not their custodial parent. I wonder if I can send her this post anonymously.
And the courts? We have 50% of the custody of those kids. We almost never get to see them. If we complain, we have been informed that the kids will get put into foster care while the court investigates. We live in MA. The courts? They suck.
I’m sorry, Beth. I’m really sorry. Those situations are heartbreaking. Good for you. Hang in there.
And tons of appreciation to involved, loving step parents. I have no idea where I would have been without mine.
This is pretty hostile, Liz. I don’t like the forced 50/50 split either, but parents do have some rights when it comes to the children we have opted to bring into the world. There are good parents who are divorced and those who aren’t but abject hatred toward people who are working very hard to do the right thing in a HARD situation isn’t the answer.
I’m not sure where you get abject hatred from this. I certainly don’t feel any, so if it’s there, it’s a typo.
Hmmm. I don’t see how this post talks about divorce as part of the issue at all? Or that mentions anything about hard working or not?
I don’t see any hatred here. It is imperative to talk about this issue, because it relates directly to the safety and security of children – who can’t speak for themselves.
This isn’t a dissertation on good vs. bad parenting, as I see it. It is taking a stand on making sure laws address the rights of children first, and not relying on a parent’s word that they know what is best. Because that isn’t universally true. I speak from firsthand experience on this one.
There isn’t room for taking any issue personally when it comes to to the safety of kids.
Wow, I don’t see any hostility here much less “abject hatred.” ?? Maybe you read it fast after a hard day or something?
I don’t really think it’s about divorce it’s about being responsible for the kids you made no matter what else is going on.
Not sure I’ve ever seen a proposal more rooted in appeasing adults’ sense of entitlement at the expense of the welfare of their child(ren). It’s simply delusional to think that parents, by default, are equally competent at that task and, as such, should automatically receive commensurate responsibilities/privileges.
If you want to claim that you’re someone’s equal in terms of being able to see a child through to adulthood, you damn well better be coming with more than the fact you went “halvsies” on the genetic material. This is a largely defenseless human being, not an order of fries you both chipped in for.
Right Freaking On.
I’ll add: Having kids is not an obligation. It’s an OPTION. Something you choose to do. And there’s no dearth of information out there about how hard it is. Not everyone is up to it- and THAT’S OKAY. Really. It’s ok to say “I can’t handle it, I’ll throw you some child support, please take custody.” In the end, everyone will be better off.
With respect to Ei: I understand where you’re coming from, too. Divorce, the thought of losing your children, both of those things can drive a person utterly mad with fear and grief and pain, and even parents who are otherwise responsible can sometimes wind up doing really dumb, crazy stuff under those circumstances. There has to be a middle path of holding parents accountable while respecting their humanity, and still making certain the kids are cared for in the manner which they deserve Most society’s have a hell of a time finding that path, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.
The governing legal standard in matters of child custody is “best interests of the children.” It is, of course, arguable how well this is applied case-by-case, but it is actually enshrined in law. And the 50/50 custody law is not the first law to make presumptions outright about custody – in Massachusetts, there is a legal presumption that long term/permanent physical custody be awarded to the custodial parent. There’s an assumption that a parent who has been violent in a domestic setting will not be awarded custody. While I haven’t researched the 50/50 Tennessee law, there is certainly an argument that a presumption of split-down-the-middle custody is in the best interest of the children, to be applied or denied in specific cases.
Of course, I’m not a parent, and family law is not my specialty (though I do have a published article about “best interests of the children” in an international adoption context).
From my perspective, I don’t see this as hostile….I want to yell “AMEN!”
My husband and I, childless but not by choice, have to sit on the sidelines and watch the treatment a family member gives her children. We’ve offered to take one or all of them, for a week, a month, forever…anything. We’d also support the children moving in with ANY OTHER family member, or even an appropriate family friend. This is not about our (admittedly intense) desire for children — this is about what would be best for the children.
This family member has three kids by three different men. She’s a drug user, and the children are in a FILTHY house (I don’t mean dirty, I mean the sort of place where your shoe *squishes* and *crackles* into the carpet, and you have to tug hard to pull the sole free of the stickiness). The 12 year old does any cleaning that happens, and feeds the 18-month-old (soda pop in his bottle, a handful of gummy candy strips, some potato chips and the potato chip bag to play with…) The 6 year old has some sort of language problem (we suspect something in the autism spectrum). This is barely scratching the surface, but isn’t the forum to go into the whole situation.
Suffice to say this family member will NOT allow any of three children to live anywhere else, because they are “hers” and therefore “her property”. If she has fewer children, she will lose various welfare benefits, and won’t get the child support she squeezes from each child’s absent father. She has smugly told us that YES, it is all about the money, and that she NEEDS the 12 year old, for her childcare services (this woman does not work, nor does her current common-law husband).
Hostile? I don’t think Liz’s post is hostile at all. My thoughts about my niece and nephews? THOSE are hostile.
…and I bet there’s any number of people who would look at this individual and hold her up as an example of a reason to deny benefits to other people, to boot.
*growl froth snarl Jess smash*
Also, =( Those poor kids. The real pisser is that they are kids who have other people willing to care for them, and they still can’t get out of that horrible situation. =(
Bunch of crap.
Dirty houses are often the basis for referrals to protective services. At the very least it can get in-home services initiated to prevent actually removing the children. That might sound harsh, but it’s a better alternative than what can happen to the 18 month-old in that sort of environment.
If you’re worried about what might happen if you involve the authorities, while I’m not sure how it works in your state, with the state agency I work for, we are legally bound to approach and exhaust any possible relatives who may be willing to care for the children before any non-relative care provider is considered. If you and your husband made the referral, you’d probably be the first people they asked about serving as a placement.
Thank you, Jess, for your empathy, and thank you, Paul, for your suggestion.
We have been trying to exhaust all our options, including getting two of the three absent fathers involved. Our next step is Child Protective Services, despite fears that the children will get “stuck” in the foster care system or that the mother will simply hide from us, with the children in tow. But it may just be that the foster care system would be better than their current situation, and we can always do our best to get custody (or help another family member get custody).
*offers non-creepy internet hugs*
*accepts non-creepy internet hugs with gratitude*
Damn, I love being part of this group, “DaFans of DaMomma”!
If I were you, I would look into getting approved as foster parents now so that if you end up at CPS, then you could offer yourselves as foster parents, if it came to that.
I love this idea.
GREAT idea, Heather…thank you!!
Carolie–
Re: Heather’s suggestion, it’s def. a good one, but don’t wait for licensing. depending on the state and the available funding and the class schedules, it can take some time–time kids (esp. an 18 month old) might not have.
In my state, protective services has relative caregivers sign a form where they commit to initiating the licensing process when they take the kids into their homes. 9.9 times out of 10, relatives don’t have a license when they take the kids in.
long and the short: look into the license, but don’t hesitate because of it.
Heartbreaking. It shakes my faith, really, that those kids are there and they could be with you. I hope you get them, and take them home and fill their bellies and give them clean beds.
As it is, this state (I’m in TN) is biased toward mothers and I think by enacting this legislation, they hope to be telling fathers they are being considered more, that the co-parent situation is a more level playing field.
The thing I hate about Tennessee is that our legislators, while usually well-intentioned, make stupid laws.
We’re still waiting on better laws, like stricter sentencing, and they are worried about a ton of frivolous things.
I think mothers still do the vast majority of childcare and if we are interested in leveling the playing field we should be encouraging men to do half of the work long before there is a divorce.
I think this is one of those laws that they enact with good intentions but will really just bring on more problems than solutions down the road.
Good intentions…or possibly just the most mindnumbingly blinkered understanding of the issues involved.
I’m also a Tennessee resident, and this law makes me sick. There are so many parents who do not want, or even DESERVE, a right to their children, that such a broad rule makes no sense. Some parents, be they mothers or fathers, simply do not deserve any inherent “right” to a child. I understand the legal system, and know that this is impractical, but a perfect world would allow for a case-by-case analysis of parental custody rights. (This understanding and disillusionment might have something to do with my dropping out of law school, hmm.)
I agree with you Angie. Mother or father, there’s no entitlement. There are a lot of parents who don’t actually want to do the care of the children, who aren’t going to do it, and to give them arbitrary 50 percent custody is not in the best interests of the children.
AMEN!
We have a law like this for some years now, and I think its working. It meant for my husband that his ex wife was unable to take their three sons completely away from him. She tried to anyway (out of sheer malice) and under the old law she might have accomplished this.
Liz, if you think parents have no rights (I like that), than you must agree that BOTH parents equally, that’s 50/50, have no rights. That is not the case in the old situation.
Karin — I am sorry for the situation with your stepchildren’s mother.
My concern is that the 50/50 split allows parents that are not really interested in the children to gain leverage in using the children against their partners. (Or in taking on children they don’t want because they are too narcissistic to say so.)
As a child of divorce, I love the biblical story of Solomon deciding an ancient custody dispute. Confronted with two mothers claiming a child, his verdict was to split the child in two. The real mother surrendered the child to the other woman rather than see him torn.
Solomon then knew her to be the one who cared about the boy and gave her custody.
Mandatory 50/50 laws just do the splitting part.
Parents who are not really interested in the children will always be a problem. With or without divorce. My parents never divorced, they went on fighting each other over our heads. I will spare you the details, but I still feel like I escaped from a madhouse.
I knew the story of the two mothers and one child and the ruling of Solomon. But, his ruling did work out, didn’t it?
I am a family lawyer. I haven’t read the bill, but the article really doesn’t provide sufficient information to make a judgment on it. What I assume is that the intention of the bill is to create a legal presumption of 50-50 custody, and that the presumption could be overruled when appropriate. As Elisabeth stated, custodial presumptions already exist in many jurisdictions. From the brief description in the article, I believe the bill is a positive step. It is the right of children to have maximum time with both parents, provided that is in the best interests of the children. There should be an opportunity to prove that a 50-50 split is not in the kids’ best interests if that is a concern. In my view, the bill seeks to remove bias toward one parent or another and I see that as a good thing.
If I may, when you say you choose to be there for your child for the next 18 years… I think it’s more like a lifetime commitment !
I think children are a lifetime commitment, but I think the devotion to their care is about an 18 year-window. I’ll certainly always be around to advise and listen — to provide a safety net if I can. I’ll always care. But past a certain age they’ll need to manage their own problems and provide for themselves and whomever they choose to take on.
You said it perfectly!! The poor kids are the ones that suffer in such situations. Not all 50/50 splits are like that, but there are enough where the children are used as leverage and it’s not fair or right! I see it everyday through friends that have a blended family… not only is it hard on them as parents and as a couple, but their children all suffer from it.
Good for you… I don’t see hostility in this just a fierce defence of children, which are too often overlooked in custody battles. Many parents do put their children first, but even the most well-meaning parents sometimes do not. I wholeheartedly support your ‘bill of no-rights.’ The job of being a parent is overwhelming and it can feel like we deserve a reward but we have to remember we made this choice and, if we do it right and put our kids first, we do get rewarded. It may not be obvious, and it may not be a comfortable retirement or a new car, but it is pretty incredible to see a human being develop. I am raising my kids – or trying to at least – to be their own people who, I hope, will make me a part of their life… but that will be their own choice. I can love them and support them and then hope that is enough.
Good for you for being brave enough to post this – even though it will inevitably be attacked.
You think this law is bad? You should see the laws regarding custody in many states. My personal favorite in my state–
It is mandatory to either 1) provide the name of the father for the birth certificate, and make sure he signs, or 2) provide the names of all men you have had relations with, so that they may forcibly be brought in for DNA testing. Then, the name is assigned to the birth certificate, and even if the ‘father’ does not want parental rights to the child; the rights can not be relinquished until the mother has been married at least six months to another man, willing to take on the role of adoption, and after having completed an adoption homestudy and court procedures.
All of this so that if you, as a single mother, have to go on Medicaid, the states has someone to go after (they sue the ‘father’ for the monies paid by the state to the mother, even in some cases where the father was current on mandated child support. Oh, even if you do not want child support, the state goes after it on your behalf, even if you ask them not to (fear of violence, usually called “Good Cause”). Don’t cash the checks every month when they garnish his wages? They threaten you, but ultimately put it in an interest bearing account, and profit off it.
Some of these laws just really get under my skin, and I am not even affected by them! I can’t imagine what I would feel like if I was having to live through it!
You know….this would be a much smaller issue if adult parents would get over themselves. People are so stinking selfish that many parents never even stop to think about what their child wants or more importantly NEED. What they NEED is for their parents to grow the crap up. I have an ex….the one thing I told him when we divorced was that no matter what our problems were I would NOT fight with him in front of our kid. And she has never heard me speak ill of him. I made a decision that if I was gonna put her in the position of not having both of us 100% of the time, that at LEAST I would make it as easy as possible for her. I have not been perfect. But my point is, that if more parents would put away their “rights” and selfish attitudes and pay more attention to what their kid is going through, the courts wouldn’t HAVE to get involved as often. The reason why the courts have to step in and create these (usually wrong) laws, is quite simply because most parents are selfish poops
After a long night up with a cranky toddler, this is a good reminder of what I really signed up for. Thanks, Liz.
We are such an ‘entitled’ group. People don’t acknowledge that when you have a child you are giving up your rights and taking on the responsibility of raising them in a way that is best for them. Not you. And it trumps any “right” you think you have. Sometimes, even the right to go to the bathroom by yourself. You choose their good over your wants. And sometimes its not easy. What were you expecting? But your the adult. Deal with it.
I totally agree with this. The way that is best for THEM. Thank you for saying it so well.
-Sondra
Liz, I read the Bill of No-Rights as reminding me, on a hard week when EVERYTHING can be a fight, that I am not hard-done by (I throw an amazing pity party). It’s what I signed up for.
yes. thank you.
I read each of your subject lines and was “pissed off”! Then you convinced me you were right—-in every case. Thanks for this.
I raised two boys without their Mother being present much of the time. When she finally got her act together, the boys had made their choices. She is merely a sidelight today. However, the courts in California would gladly have given the boys to her, if she had wanted them. Fathers seldom count out here.
gramps
This is such a tough subject for me, as a newly divorced mom of 2 amazing kiddos (one with special needs). I agree that children shouldn’t be treated as property nor should they be with parents who aren’t fit. I also agree that parenthood, if its done right, is a selfless journey and FOR the child’s best interests, not the parents. But in divorce, when hostility and emotion often run extremely high, that is not always possible, especially (such as in my case) when BOTH parents are unable to put the kids first. I can only do so much as a mother, when my children’s father cannot be anything but selfish. I cannot make up for his lack of maturity or need to be manipulative or uninvolved. I cannot make him pay child support or feed them fresh fruit or make sure their hair is brushed before dropping them off at school. I can only do MY best for my children. It is very easy to judge and abjectly/theoretically decide what best for a child or children, especially if you are happily married to someone who is committed to family and raising children together. However, EVERY family is different. Each parent is different and children’s needs should be decided on an individual basis, not as a blanket for all “divorced” parents. Every one suffers in divorce. None more so than the children of divorce. Each weekend, when I don’t see my kids, I feel like a part of me is missing. I doubt that will ever change. And I truly hope over time, as my children’s voices are able to be heard for themselves in court, that they are able to advocate for themselves in a way that the state of California would not allow me to do for them.
=(
I’m sorry for all the suck you are having to deal with. Best of luck to you.
When my parents split it was a very bad time between the two of them, but they NEVER made it hard on us kids. My father saw us every other weekend and on Wednesdays. He also got us for two weeks during the summer. My mother bought school/winter clothes and my father bought spring/summer clothes. We saw both of our parents and their families on Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter. It was strained between the two of them but they always, ALWAYS put our needs and emotional well being first. I can never thank them enough for that. But I know that I am the exception. Most adults do not act as such when there is a divorce. The 50/50 thing is crap. The childrens needs are the #1 priority.
Amen! I everyone could understand that…
I am a mother of an almost 2 year old adorable girl. I look up to you as a mother and as a person. You inspire me! I had big problems with my mother growing up and I stopped seeing her, speaking to her about 10 years ago because it wasn’t a “sane” (not sure what the exact english word would be, I am a francophone) relationship. I was always afraid I’d be like her because she was the only mother figure I had, but I see that I can be a good mother even if I “suffered” with my mother. Thank you for inspiring me to be an even better mother to my baby girl.
Anouk,in this context, I think the closest English equivalent to “saine” would be “healthy”.
Motherhood is awesome!
As the child of two divorces, and as a (lo and behold) child and family therapist, I grow oh so weary of blanket laws that seem horribly simplistic and which seem to ignore the fact that divorce’s only common denominator is that two adults (technically adults, in some cases, emotionally often not so much) have chosen to legally end their union… beyond that, so very much is so very, personally individual… in my case, both of my fathers were mistreated by the process. My biological father was my primary caregiver for the first two years of my life, then, abruptly, I just stopped being with him. Looking at my little girls now, and at the vast expanse of love and adoration that their father has for them (and they for him), I cannot fathom the pain that must have been involved… I gained some sense of it, though, watching my stepfather lose custody of my half sisters for no good reason whatsoever (I was away at college). His grief was deep and wide and so painful to watch. I suppose some sort of 50/50 law would have helped them, and due to my history, I am fierce about fathers having rights, too, but in my practice I know only too well that a simplistic 50/50 law would only further the horrors many children have suffered from one parent or the other- often these horrors, believe it or not, do not fall so easily under criminal guidelines, being often psychological vs physical or involving various forms of neglect, or various forms of mental health issues in the parents that create maddening fuzziness in custody proceedings, as one psychologist or expert witness argues with another. Anyway, as I said, simplistic just doesn’t seem to make sense…
Oh, Liz, right on. I have family members who are in the midst of a heartbreaking situation wherein they have just been given temporary custody of their infant grandson after he was significantly injured. Best case scenario is neglect. Abuse is possible – the story about what happened doesn’t seem to match the injuries. Baby’s mom and dad are busy being belligerent, angry and uncooperative – refused to give them any of the baby’s things (thereby punishing their child, in the process), haven’t bothered to visit their son when permitted because they didn’t want to make the drive, and so on. The good news is that the baby is safe and healing and loved with his grandparents, who are prepared to care for him as long as needed. But oh, my heart hurts wondering about the future for this sweet child, who didn’t ask to be born to such immature, selfish, neglectful parents. And for his grandparents, who are hit from both sides, suddenly having an infant to care for and having to deal with all the emotional fallout of having a son who has been/is treating his own baby (and them) so badly. I want to take your post to the baby’s parents and MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND. But, of course, no one can make them get it.
I love that list. As a child, the ‘command’ to respect one’s parents always seemed unreasonable to me; as an adult, that whole list makes me sing with joy. I haven’t got any children, yet at least – but I work with kids and if only more parents treated having children as a sacred privilege instead of some kind of right, I think the kids I work with would be a lot happier and have fewer behavioural problems.
Not being able to read the actual bill, I don’t see 50/50 as a bad starting place when divorces are contentious. In a perfect world, parents who can’t stay together would agree on what was best for the child. unfortunately, we live in the real world where that doesn’t always happen. I do think that children owe their parents basic respect, if for no other reason than the fact that their parents gave them life. Parenting brings responsibility. The one part I disagree with is a responsibility for their wants. We provided our son with his wants in accordance with his behavior.