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
