Dueling Divorcees and Christmas Cheer

I learned today that this time of year is one of the busiest for the family court system.  Other busy times?  Spring break and summer vacation.  Why?  Parents initiating custody battles over possession of their children.

The way some parents deal with divorce and their children is very upsetting.  There often seems to be no concern for the child, only getting the best of the other parent.  And the legal system often seems to perpetuate it.  In the few cases in which I have been involved there are only cursory references to what is best for the child.  The majority of the conversation seems to revolve around the "rights" of the parents. 

A lawyer once told me, even in cases where a parent has sexually assaulted a child it is very rare for their parental rights to be terminated.  The court will almost always maintain that they have a right to have a relationship with the child, even if only in supervised visits.  Excuse me?  If you molest your child I believe you have forfeited your "rights". 

If a child has been abused by one parent it is up to the other parent to protect them, and rightfully so.  However, the overburdened Child Protective Services system often fails to protect the child.  The burden then lies solely on the protective parent to financially pay for a lawyer to protect the child from the other parent.  This can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on how much the abusive parent can put toward contesting the petition.  And if the non-abusive parent does not have this kind of money?  The abusive parent retains their "rights".  Why is it that only the children of wealthy parents can be protected?  Aren't all of our children important?

I have a colleague who maintains that parents should not have rights.  Children should have rights.  Parents should have privileges.  And those privileges can be revoked if they are detrimental to the well-being of the child.  If someone out there is looking for a good cause this would be it.  Children need an advocate in the court speaking for them.  The laws in this country need to be amended to put the burden on protecting the best interests of the child, not the parents.  

Comments

[felix]

You are so right Kellen. There never seems to be any common sense or foresight; it's the children who are in need of the rights. Here in the uk there is talk of grandparent rights too!

Could it be that parents and the powers that be lack so much self confidence that they are afraid of losing their power over children? Or do they want to retain the power over children, thus preventing them from develpoing thoughts and a belief of self worth that may overturn the establishment?

Could the establishment of government be seen as one huge dysfunctional family? They will not be happy when they have no power; to give children rights would eventually lead to freedom of thought- and that would not do at all!

Isn't it time parents stopped behaving as they own their kids, so many times I hear phrases like "my kids"; rather, they should see them as individuals that need guidance, care, love and all the help they need to make the most of their lives now, and in the future. Children will then learn that they too deserve respect as individuals; and the best bit - they will pass these ideals onto the next generation.

[Kellen]

Hi Felix,

I think there is definitely a power element to the entire thing. I'm watching a custody battle now and the child seems merely to be a pawn in the parents' misguided attempts to strike back at each other.

I think there may also be a legal element to it. Introducing all these people's "rights" allows attorneys to make a case for each person and therefore to conjure cases where there previously weren't any. In the same custody battle I'm watching the father hire an attorney, the mother hire an attorney and they are now required to pay for an attorney for the child. The process has just made a job for three attorneys.

Personally, I think only one attorney is needed in a custody battle - someone to represent the child. And that person should be court appointed so that poor children aren't at a disadvantage.

[felix]

Hi Kellen,

And all the attorneys are good mates... a win win situation for them because they can ! All this turmoil for the child has such a sad negative effect and can only enhance their mistrust of adults- as if the bad marriage and divorce aren't sad enough.

I also agree that it's only the child that needs representation, but when it's all over the child usually resides with one parent who then has far too much control over the other parents' contact with the child.