Case law quote from the Superior court

[dadmisseskids]

I was reading some case law this weekend and came across a paragraph that disturbed me. Granted, it was in 1992 and I know things have changed since then. Is it me or does it seem like this statement is full of conjecture?

Mothers, however, by every measure and study that addresses this issue, are far and away more deeply involved and effected by the nurturing requirement than fathers and without question are generally impoverished by separation and divorce when children are involved. To attempt to restructure the nurturing parent doctrine as detailed in the appellant's brief will simply add to an already lopsided and unbalanced burden on women caring for children. It is another destructive step in a culture which appears bent on destroying family stability. It also will increase the pressure on women with second families to abort pregnancies and to abandon children, or to give up on second marriages with children when the stress of either going to work or forcing the second husband to support her children by a prior marriage becomes unbearable.

[BartSimpson]

The second wave of Feminism struck about 1984 - the first wave about equality and access, the second about empowerment and preference. This is an excellent example of the success of the second wave in such a brief period of time. By 1990 the feminist agenda to frame men as uninvolved, detached and alledged by every measure and study to be cold heartless bastards was politically correct. A couple of years later, OJ Simpson (no relation) gave the feminist agenda the super-glue it needed to keep those heartless bastards where they belong. Grant that TRO without question. Give that poor helpless woman preference.

The element of culture then that was bent on destroying family stability was - and is - the feminist agenda and it's associated political correctness.

[Jehr]

If the loser of that case wanted to appeal, I would have to think the door for it would be wide open.

"Mothers, however, by every measure and study that addresses this issue..." surely isn't true (i.e. studies exist to debunk this), and it wasn't substantiated with any studies (or even attempted to be substantiated) noted at all. This is just the opinion of an ignorant, lazy judge.

[BartSimpson]

This is just the opinion of an ignorant, lazy judge.

Maybe, but the judge had a huge vocal cheering section in the front row of the gallery.

[dadmisseskids]

It was an interesting case. The mother had primary custody of a child that was in school (I think the kid was 8 or 9). The mother got remarried and was a SAHM for the child of her 2nd husband. So yes, the nurturing parent doctrine applies but it's not for the school aged kid of the 1st marriage. Do you give her an earning potential even though she's a SAHM where the nurturing parent doctrine applies? Seems confusing to me.

Regardless of the actual case law, the opinion by the judge was crazy as Jehr said and this part seemed stupid:

It also will increase the pressure on women with second families to abort pregnancies and to abandon children, or to give up on second marriages with children when the stress of either going to work or forcing the second husband to support her children by a prior marriage becomes unbearable.

How the hell would contributing financially for a child (i.e. "a job") cause women to abandon children, get abortions or give up on second marriages? Oh, I guess getting a job can do that to some women....

This judge is a bit out there.

[Trevor]

It also will increase the pressure on women with second families to abort pregnancies and to abandon children, or to give up on second marriages with children when the stress of either going to work or forcing the second husband to support her children by a prior marriage becomes unbearable.

And this is a clear, unequivocal example of the other end of the spectrum--the fundamentalist, uber-conservative perspective, so often overlooked or unattributed. You can't credibly call this language part of any liberal, feminist agenda.

[Jehr]

The whole thing reads more like an opinion-editorial than a legal decision.

[dadmisseskids]

FWIW, on the three judge panel, there was one that saw through the bullsh*t of the other two judges. He said:

Contrary to the position expressed by the Majority, requiring all parents to be responsible financially for their children is not "another destructive step in a culture which appears bent on destroying family stability." Rather, it is a realistic attempt to insure that both parents have a responsibility to their children. Being a parent is a demanding vocation that requires personal and financial sacrifice. By choosing not to allow a parent to escape child support obligations because of the existence of a new family we are recognizing the needs of children to the love, support, and sacrifice of both parents.

I believe that courts must look beyond a nurturing parent claim, particularly where the nurtured child is not the one for whom support is sought, to determine a parties support obligation. In arriving at this determination, courts should consider the financial condition of the family, the nurturing needs being met, the ability of the obligor parent to engage in employment, the economic value of the nurturing parent's service to the family unit, and any other factors that may enhance this determination.

Therefore, I dissent.

I wonder if this guy (my assumption) got the evil eye from the other hens that worked at the courthouse with him?

[Thoughts?]

Three judge mid-level appellate panel, not the state supreme court, right?

Case law, but 20 year old case law with many legislative sessions since then, including a lot of effort to make family law gender neutral in most states.

[dadmisseskids]

Three judge mid-level appellate panel, not the state supreme court, right?

Correct.

Case law, but 20 year old case law with many legislative sessions since then, including a lot of effort to make family law gender neutral in most states.

Absolutely. I firmly believe that the custody law which went into effect this year in PA was a significant factor for me in obtaining primary custody. (Mostly because of the judge I had)