ISBA Family Law Section Council, Has Unanimously Opposed This Bill

ISBA Family Law Section Council, Has Unanimously  Opposed This Bill

Posted by: "John" f4j.john@yahoo.com   f4j.john

Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:36 pm (PDT)

Illinois Fathers recently became aware of an article that was published from
the Family Law Section Council of the Illinois State Bar Association regarding
House Bill 1604 (otherwise known as the Steven Watkins Bill). The ISBA Family
Law Section Council, "has unanimously opposed this bill, and privately chuckled
at its simplistic and wrong minded attempt to shove a square peg into a round
hole." The premise behind HB1604 is to address a very serious pitfall that
exists in Family Law today. The very foundation of Family Law in the State of
Illinois, and other states as well, is the "best interests of the child." We
use this phrase with impunity during the tens of thousands of trials in family
law across the State every month, but yet we give a very prima facie glance at
the interests of the child. We concentrate very heavily on the payment of
maintenance and support, but when it comes to the emotional needs of the child,
we fail miserably. In Illinois, interference of visitation is often times
ignored entirely, both civilly and criminally, which causes great dismay to
both the child, and the other parent who is being prevented from seeing their
child. As a result, we see the following effects:

* 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II,
para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

* "40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial
father's visitation, and their motives were punitive in nature and not due to
safety considerations" (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton)
Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers
and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

* "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s
continued contact with his children…." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan
Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)

* Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling
problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends &
relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook
Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

* "The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of
fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family
Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

* "Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage
father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am.
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)

* Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in
their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer &
Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

* In a study: "Visitational Interference – A National Study" by Ms. J Annette
Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of
non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by
the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the
custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation
is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support
and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992
The article published by the Family Law Section Council further levies the
argument that visitation isn't quantifiable as child support is and thus the
bill makes for bad law. Again, this premise is false. Visitation orders in the
State must define the times associates with visitation. A record of the fact
should be kept and addressed in a quantifiable manner, unless there is an
emergent condition as to the reason the children aren't with the parent they
are supposed to be with during that parenting time. Many non-custodial parents
do this every day. Some companies even sell computer software to aid in the
tracking of days and hours missed. Time is very quantifiable.
The true issue of House Bill 1604 is that it is a change of the status quo. It
sends the very strong message that the state considers children's relationships
with both parents a priority and as equally important as the payment of child
support. HB 1604 informs the public it will act as vigorously to preserve and
enhance those relationships as it does to collect monetary support. It presents
a shift in perception to what law is currently practiced today. In the 2008
edition of Family Law: Child-Related Issues in Dissolution Actions produced by
the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education only one small section
is dedicated to addressing visitation interference; meanwhile, entire chapters
are dedicated to custody and support. So while it may seem like a square peg
into a round hole for some, for those who live the issue on a day in and day
out ordeal, it is a painful and ongoing struggle that has no solution in sight.
HB1604 works to provide solutions and provide encouragement to parents who wish
to use their children as pawns in the ongoing struggles of family law to place
the emotional needs of the children first and to help give our courts the tools
needed to focus on the "best interests of the child."

Written by Board Member Ian Mitchell with approval from the Board of Directors
and Area Coordinators for Illinois Fathers.

 

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property