"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sue, Joan and Group: its good to read this post. Elsewhere there were
articles that targeted one sex, almost as if the other parent was
presumed blameless. This post speaks of parents, not one side or the
other; thanks for sharing it. :) LDMF.
--------------------------Joan Moyer wrote:---------------------------
>
> "Joan Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hello Sue,
>
> This sounds encouraging. IMO, it would be beneficial to the children.
>
> Joan
>
> ----------
> > From: Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: L&I Anti-batterer custody bill OK constitutionally, SJC rules
> > Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:11 PM
> >
> > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > In Massachusetts...
> > (From Boston Globe)
> >
> > The Supreme Judicial Court yesterday removed several legal hurdles to
> > the
> > passage of a bill that would make it more difficult for parents
> > implicated
> > in spousal abuse to gain custody of their children.
> >
> >
> > Vehemently opposed by several fathers' groups, the measure in recent
> > years
> > has cleared the House but repeatedly stalled in the Senate.
> >
> >
> > The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has
> > engaged
> > in a ''pattern or serious incident of abuse'' should not get custody or
> > visitation rights with their children.
> >
> >
> > It has won the backing of a broad range of groups concerned with
> > domestic
> > violence, child protection, women's issues and law enforcement, and it
> > appeared to be on the verge of passage last November when the Senate
> > gave
> > its preliminary approval to the measure by a vote of 36 to 1.
> >
> >
> > But Senator Edward J. Clancy Jr. (D-Lynn), the lone dissenting vote, who
> > had
> > succeeded in past years in killing the measure, persuaded his colleagues
> > to
> > ask the SJC for its opinion on the constitutionality of the measure.
> >
> >
> > Yesterday, the SJC said that while parents have a constitutionally
> > protected
> > interest in their relationship with their children, when domestic
> > violence
> > has been a significant factor in the home, it may be in the child's best
> > interests to limit parents' rights.
> >
> >
> > The court addressed the issue of one parent making false allegations of
> > domestic abuse against the other, a key concern of fathers' groups
> > opposing
> > the legislation. In the decision, the justices said most parents would
> > not
> > lie about abuse because if the lie were found out, they would risk
> > losing
> > custody of their children.
> >
> >
> > The SJC said the bill is proposing nothing extraordinary.
> >
> >
> > ''There is a growing national awareness that children who witness or
> > experience domestic violence suffer deep and profound harms,'' the court
> > said. ''To better protect children, many states have adopted legislation
> > making it more difficult for an abusive parent to obtain custody of a
> > child
> > in a divorce proceeding.''
> >
> >
> > Proponents were elated.
> >
> >
> > Beth Boland, president-elect of the Massachusetts Women's Bar
> > Association,
> > said, ''It really is clarifying that the psychological well-being of
> > children in abusive homes really trumps the interests of the allegedly
> > abusive parent.''
> >
> >
> > Senator Cheryl A. Jacques (D-Needham), a lead sponsor of the bill, said
> > the
> > SJC opinion ''has cleared the way for passage of this important
> > legislation,'' which ''will go a long way toward breaking the cycle of
> > domestic abuse.''
> >
> >
> > Clancy could not be reached for comment, but the opinion rankled
> > fathers'
> > groups.
> >
> >
> > John Maguire of Boston-based Fathers and Families said, ''Most children
> > would crawl on their hands and knees for a chance to see either parent.
> > This
> > decision is a sad mistake because it will ensure that thousands of
> > children
> > will lose all-important contact with their fathers.''
> > --
> > Two rules in life:
> >
> > 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> > 2.
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
