Kids in the balance

In vetoing the bill that would have increased the minimum presumption of shared parenting following a divorce from 25 percent of the time to 35 percent (unless the court found a reason to restrict access), Gov. Mark Dayton may have been swayed by misinformation.

It's extremely unfortunate that such an important bill, thoroughly researched and carefully analyzed for so many years, and so strongly supported by the majority of citizens in this state, could be obliterated by the stroke of a pen. The heavy lobbying and inside relationships of special-interest attorneys won out over the cries of children and the persistence of the parents. Citizens seeking justice through the courts have been told by judges to talk to the Legislature to change the law. The people did speak through their legislators, and the bipartisan bill passed 132-61.

There is mass public outcry for family court reform. Legislators often say they have persistently and consistently heard more complaints about family court than just about any other issue.

The current presumption of 25 percent parenting time reflects a glorified every-other-weekend and holiday schedule, with an extended summer vacation.

Current law requires a judge to pick one winner parent and one loser parent. This creates conflict.

Where the law is silent, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has legislated from the bench and determined that joint physical custody and equal shared parenting is not allowed except in rare circumstances. This is completely inconsistent with volumes of current social-science research.

Children do better with both parents in their lives. When each fit parent is ready, willing and able to take responsibility for their own children, why should the courts prevent this?

The full version of the bill (HF322) was a rebuttable presumption -- that is, it's not a mandate and judges can deny it -- for joint physical custody and equal shared parenting.

Key senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a watered-down version of the bill that deleted 99 percent of the House version. This Senate version, meant to appease the opposition, represented a minor change in the law. The Senate bill would do only one thing: grant a rebuttable presumption for 35 percent parenting time.

The governor indicated that he was "particularly influenced" by opponents who claimed their expertise working "every day with the most challenging divorces." We are left to assume he was referring to the same three lawyer groups who heavily lobbied and testified against the bill throughout the legislative process.

The opponents of the shared-parenting bill consisted primarily of a small, influential group of well-entrenched lawyers from Legal Aid, the Family Law Section of the Bar and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Since custody battles are revenue generators for attorneys, they have a lot at stake.

During the process of developing bill language, supporters invited these opponents and a domestic-violence group into the process. The opponents refused to offer any suggestions for bill language to satisfy their concerns or help solve the problems of unwarranted conflict over custody and the inequities in parenting time determinations for fit parents.

The next question should have been: How would this bill for a 35 percent presumption handle those situations any different than the current law handles the same situations with the 25 percent presumption? The answer: Exactly the same. There is no consistency to the argument when the opposition claims 35 percent won't work for the same reasons it claims 25 percent does work -- judicial discretion.

Then there is the wildcard -- domestic violence. This matter has its own set of protections that preempt all other family law, and the final version kept all of that in tact.

In the bill, the presumption for increased parenting time was not a guarantee, and it wasn't a mandate. Just as is true with current law, the bill maintained the same unbridled discretion to restrict parenting time for any reason the family court system deems necessary.

The citizens of Minnesota need to ask: How did divorce lawyers circumvent the will of the people?