Joint custody is not right for every family. This “one size fits all” approach to resolving the often difficult issue of child custody cases will not serve the interests of Michigan’s children. Furthermore, it will put child and adult victims of domestic violence at even greater risk for harm.
Here are 10 reasons why the Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence (MCEDSV) opposes HB 4691(H2):
- Joint custody currently receives special and preferential consideration under Michigan law, which requires courts to inform the parties of the availability of joint custody, consider awarding joint custody if either party requests it, and state the reasons on the record if joint custody is not awarded.
- Most custody cases are resolved by the parties coming to an agreement. Since Michigan law directs judges to enter such agreements as the final custody order (unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement is not in the “best interest of the child”). This presumption would most directly impact those cases where the parties cannot agree — a large number of these cases involve domestic violence.
- Research and experience indicates that for joint custody arrangements to be successful for children, parties must be highly motivated and committed to co-parenting in different households. Cooperation, compromise, communication and safety are all necessary components to a successful joint custody arrangement. These components are not present in every situation, and certainly do not exist where one party has a history of abuse against the other. Joint custody should be an option if both parents support it and if they are capable of cooperation; it should have no presumptive superiority, and it should be disallowed if the parents’ relationship is chronically conflictual or if one parent has abused the other.
- Joint custody places a great burden on some children. Joint custody often requires a child to move back and forth continuously. Even in the best of situations, with highly committed and cooperative parents, the child must live in two households and neighborhoods, in essence having two lives. Some children simply do not have the capacity to thrive under these circumstances.
- Joint custody does not improve parental cooperation in high conflict cases. It has been well documented that joint custody actually increases conflict in these situations, resulting in greater trauma and harm to the child.
- Pursuing joint custody is not always done out of a desire to spend time with the child. In domestic violence situations, abusers frequently use joint custody to prevent the victim from leaving, as many victims will stay rather than risk the child living alone with the abuser. In cases where the victim does leave, gaining joint custody allows the batterer continued legal access to control and abuse both the adult and child victims. A presumption of joint custody will only make these tactics easier and more effective.
- Joint custody requests are also made as a means to avoid (or lessen) payment of child support. This often results in decreased resources for the children, particularly in the many joint custody cases where one parent becomes the primary caretaker and shoulders the majority of the expenses, despite the court order presuming expenses will also be shared.
- Joint custody is more expensive for everyone, as it presupposes the maintenance of two households with sufficient room and necessities for the children. It creates particular hardships for low-income families, especially for TANF recipients. TANF requires a parent to have custody the majority of the time in order to be eligible for many benefits.
- HB 4691 would throw out decades of established laws and procedures in the family courts that have been focused on the best interests of children.
- The bill is opposed by numerous professional organizations with expertise on family dynamics and child custody. Notably, the following groups have joined MCEDSV in publicly opposing this bill: National Association of Social Workers, Michigan Chapter; Michigan State Bar Association, Family Law Division; Michigan Judges’ Association; Michigan Poverty Law Program, Family Law Task Force; Batterer Intervention Services Coalition of Michigan; Michigan Domestic and Sexual Violence Treatment Board.
For many survivors of abuse, the family courts are a place to seek protection from their abusers and ensure accountability for the financial support of their children. The radical changes to Michigan’s custody laws that are contained in HB 4691 could have dangerous, unintended consequences.
MCEDSV has provided leadership as the statewide voice for survivors of domestic and sexual violence since 1978. We are a statewide, nonprofit organization. Our members are a network of domestic and sexual violence programs. Our mission is to develop and promote efforts aimed at the elimination of all domestic and sexual violence in Michigan.
Michigan Coalition to End Domestic & Sexual Violence 
5 replies on “10 reasons to oppose HB 4691”
[…] The so-called Michigan Shared Parenting Act proposes a “one-size-fits-all,” forced joint physical custody approach for all child custody cases. For more information, checkout our Top 10 Reasons MCEDSV Opposes HB 4691 blog at: https://mcedsv.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/mcedsv-opposes-presumptive-joint-custody-legislation/ […]
LikeLike
No, you are wrong.
This law is needed because as routine fathers are stripped of their rights for no good reason and end up being every other weekend dads. This DESTROYS their relationship with their kids and is not good for anybody, especially the kids.
Even in cases where the mother is not fit, yet the father is, the courts will still give custody to the mom.
My ex wife is an alcoholic and moved in with a man that used heroin, had 2 domestic violence convictions, a felony assault involving threatening a woman with a knife, and spent hard time for robbery.
I tried for custody because of this and was told by FOC that i was being controlling and its none of my business. After a year of this b.s and more shennanigans by the ex and her bf, i finally flatly refused to give my kids back to the ex after my parenting time
FOC attempted to lock me up. Judge declined (amazingly) and kids went home with me pending further guardian ad litem investigation. FOC recused from case.
Fortunatley G.A.L had some sense and recommended i be given the kids. He even askes me “how long has she been nuts for” . Judge gave me the kids. Ex wife now prostitutes herself and smokes crack. Her bf is back in prison.
Me, im just a registered nurse thats never been in handcuffs or had a ticket in 15 years.
So tell me why this bill isnt needed? Courts are bias against men. Period. Thats why this bill is imperative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
J, we’re making the same argument here.
Automatic 50/50 custody wouldn’t have been right in your situation. You mentioned that you went through the existing process and that you now have custody of your children. We’re glad to hear they are now safe and that the existing system ultimately worked.
The new system that’s being proposed would mean your ex, who you describe as having some serious substance abuse and criminal issues that put your children at risk, would have got shared custody of your children 50% of the time. You mentioned that your ex-wife’s new household included someone convicted of domestic violence. This is exactly our concern. The proposed law would create even more barriers than the challenges you faced in making your case in court and getting your kids into a safe environment. We don’t want that dangerous situation for children either.
This isn’t a women versus men issue. In fact, many dads like you, stepdads, and grandfathers oppose the new law because of their experiences like yours. Cases like yours are another example of why the courts shouldn’t just split custody 50/50 without looking at all of the facts and the safety of the children.
We’re glad your children are safe, and we encourage you to take a second look at the details of HB 4691.
LikeLike
Wrong in every way starting with all the “research and evidence” you purport without providing any citations as support. Nothing you say that includes those words is factual unless you can prove it…which you haven’t. AND, most family courts DO follow a standard visitation schedule already so implying in your opening paragraph that this “one size fits all” approach to serve the population of Michigan’s children is absolutely BASELESS. Please see that the State of MI even acknowledges on pg 7 of the parenting guidelines that there is a “typical schedule followed”,
Click to access pt_gdlns.pdf
Michigan has guidelines for sure. The deeper you get entrenched in them by a bitter party and a judge that is partial to that side of the fence, the harder it is as a parent to get to see your child because of all the guidelines. 50/50 for both parents unless you can prove harm. Reference facts otherwise you’re intentionally speaking to a crowd that isn’t interested in facts but fearful of change.
LikeLike
Leslie,
Thank you for your interest in this important issue. You raise a great point. Arguments in favor of or in opposition to a bill are strongest when they have research in support. This is why we posted a separate blog with multiple citations in support of our concerns about this bill. The research we rely on spans almost 40 years and comes from a variety of sources.
You can find that blog post here: https://mcedsv.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/presumptive-joint-custody-research-findings/
We want to be sure that we are talking about the same thing here. The current system does not automatically set joint custody in each case where the parents have not reached an agreement. Instead, it relies on a system of reviewing the best interests of the child or children. MCEDSV opposes the proposed elimination of the best interest factors. The Friend of Court best interest factors allow each judge to treat each family as unique.
You mentioned that parenting time (this is different from custody) frequently follows a similar schedule across the state. While that may often be true in cases where the parties cannot reach an agreement on a visitation schedule, this is more a matter of children’s school schedules. HB 4691 will not change the fact that minor children enrolled in school attend classes during the school year on Mondays through Fridays and do not attend on weekends. Of course, this is a practical consideration for every family court case when determining schedules for visitation.
MCEDSV agrees that in an ideal family where both parents are able to work together and there is no threat of violence, joint custody can be best for the family. However, it is incredibly important to remember that many disputed family court cases have domestic violence and even sexual abuse that threatens children’s safety and would not be appropriate for joint custody.
Here is an example of a recent Michigan child custody case in the Sanilac Family Court where the minor child was the product of a rape, the mother was a minor child when she was raped, and the biological father had been criminally convicted of that rape. Here is a link for more information: https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2017/10/man_did_not_seek_joint_custody.html
The series “Inside Evil” did some excellent reporting in it’s Episode 4: Til Death Do Us Part this month on another Michigan family. That involved cases in multiple counties and attempts by the father of the two minor children to murder the mother of the children. Here is a link for more information: https://www.cnn.com/shows/inside-evil
We believe that every family is unique and that children’s best interests must be preserved in any updates to Michigan family law. We are joined in this position by the Michigan State Bar Association Family Law Division, the Michigan Family Court Judges Association, the Michigan Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, plus many other professional groups who assist children.
Let’s keep Michigan’s kids safe! We oppose House Bill 4691.
LikeLike