On Campfield And All Kinds Of Parents
Having worked with battered women and men as domestic violence victims and also with attorneys (which isn’t always fun) for quite awhile before I went back into news (transparency girl here), your latest post sort of perplexes me.
I agree with you on one hand that two parents are GREAT. I had two of them, they dug each other, fought some, raised us and the like. I will say it wasn’t always Disney, but it wasn’t bad.
A two-parent family that is healthy is very groovy, and I have to say in a perfect world, what you are saying is a lovely idealogical oasis. But it’s not always reality and your bills seem to be very blaming to ALL women.
Why?
It’s a simple question and a political response would not work for me. A human response would suffice not to me, but to all parents would be great.
To let government decide that everyone should have mandatory joint custody is just, well, not good for every kid. Each case is different. Parents, no matter what their gender, need to be evaluated on an individual basis. You are talking money again and not parenting.
Less government, dear. Isn’t that the message you have preached? Less government. I think both men and women should be taken into consideration. There are excellent fathers and excellent mothers.
Your legislation doesn’t reflect that in the least.
All the bills were on shared parenting. The bill says men and women walk into child custody hearings on equal footing and the judge decides custody that is best for the child from there. No one is superior purely because of their sex. Currently 95% of contested custody cases go to the woman. Even when abuse is not part of the equation at all that number holds true. Where possible, reasonable, wanted and in the best interest of children that should be the case. The single parent household is killing the development of children. While not always the case you can look at about any study and the single parent household will rank at the top as a factor or common denominator for a child’s failure. Both parents are important to the life and development of the child and not just as a wallet.
My emphasis in bold, not Rep. Campfield’s.
You are contradicting yourself from your very words two week ago.
Maybe not. It all seems weird.
In a perfect world, a two-parent home would be idealistic except you tend to talk about money a lot and not kids. Shared parenting is great in a healthy environment , but I’m not getting that from researching your bill. I don’t have kids either, but I do have nieces I’m partially responsible for. I am very much a part of their lives and am with them every single day. I make mistakes but I love them. I also would like to add that most of the folks in my immediate family with kids are not divorced. I wish to be transparent once again.
How is your legislation going to impact me one of these days as an aunt? Just asking. How about an uncle?
I’m just speculating here.
And, I don’t disagree with you on nuclear families. Some men are better parents. They are. But the law is vague now as is yours, and you bring up the percentage rate among mothers. What you write goes from one degree to the other and is not about reality, but about perceptions about reality.
Haven’t judges had this right already? Wait, they have, Skippy. Laws are in place already, but you just want to create new ones?
Why not talk to the judges, DHS, DCS and those people already in place? It isn’t perfect, but why pile new laws on existing laws? DCS and DHS are overworked, running like crazy, always taking on new tasks, so why aren’t you talking to them.
You are talking cash because you said wallet. Plain and simple, and you know, there are already regulations set to deal with these things. Now, shouldn’t you be advocating judges to do their jobs instead of writing new legislation that is already on the books.
Are you stripping judges to do their jobs?
Families weren’t necessarily written about in Laura Ingalls Wilder novels. This day and age is different, not always good, not always bad, but it is what it is. There are great families in this world. We shouldn’t assume everyone is bad.
Nor should we think that life is black or white.
Kids are the bottom line and not preconceptions.
Rep. Campfield, it’s not a perfect world. Abuse occurs in one out of four homes. It’s in the news constantly. It is what it is, and many of us have tried to stop this on a non-government island for, I don’t know, the last 20 years, (you want the number to my former boss who will tell you about my work with DV victims?) but it hasn’t changed and we keep trying, changing laws that aren’t on the books and try looking at future of children who don’t have a voice. I don’t think your proposal is going to help.
I wish that it would change. It hasn’t that much but we did get some and we focused on criminal assault amongst spouse and of children but the laws, albeit not enough on conviction of dead beat parents and aggravated assault of children, we have tried.
Have you talked to us? Call your local battered women’s shelters. Call Thistle Farms or the Y in Nashville? Talk to them.
Conversations are great.
And, you know, you are legislating cash flow, not the well-being of kids.
It’s not about the wallet. It’s about who is best to raise the children. It’s about not legislating new things when laws are already on the books which aren’t always enforced. Have you talked to the judges?
When two parents walk into a courtroom, aren’t they already on equal footing? Isn’t that the law?
It’s about the kids, not a man or woman’s wallet.
So, you know, stop it.
I have seen a lot of beat-up kids (see reference above. I can supply about four numbers if you require them on my validity – one of them a former legislator, one current one, one woman who hired me fresh in Nashville who now is still working with abused kids in the ‘Boro and another who has done a ton of work for battered women.Wait, and me, because I have background here that I would be more than willing to give you. Just want to be of help because sometimes people need references.) I want what’s right at the moment to be dealt with in evaluating each individual child, not a blanket law that helps no one.
There are good people out there trying to do the right thing. I’m not so sure these laws that you keep bringing up are about trusting people who do want to do the right thing.
It’s not about a wallet all the time.
It’s not just you, but you just happen to blog just as I do. I didn’t respond on the last comment you made which made me queasy and laugh at the wrong of it all at the same time, but, come on, there are two parties involved.
And both men and women are humans. However, abuse does change the equation in a court of law. It’s all victims have, Rep. And, you know, lawyers cost money.
Your legislation is very interesting and alarming to me.
Why do you do this?
Here is a friendly recommendation. As you are blogging, talk to bloggers.
Call Cathy at Domestic Psychology to talk to her. She has five kids, is very active in the school system in K-Town and can tell you what she is seeing. In the Western Division, I’m sure my sister, Homer, who is a PTO president of a rural school, can fill you in on what’s going on in the middle school here. Or maybe Chez Bez who with his wife the lovely Paige, who are about to have their third child. LeBlanc is a great dad so maybe you should talk to him Both men can talk to you about being fathers. Heck, Michael Silence can. He’s in your neck of the woods.
They are all in healthy, very real families. Talk to them. They are loving parents. They see things we might not as non-parents.
Seriously. I’m giving you a gift.
You need to talk to single mothers and fathers too. Ask GingerSnaps who is a single mother and is very transparent on her blog about raising a child by herself. Balance it out with real parents, not just your perception of parents.
All of these folks love their children. My sister might cut a person if anyone comes near her children, but so would my brother-in-law. Mamma Bear instinct is strong in her and don’t even mess with Pappa Bear.
There are a lot of authorities on parenting. They are, and I know it’s crazy, called parents. Talk to them. They are your best resource on these things. And they don’t speak from their wallet, they will speak from their hearts.
I’m just asking, Rep. Campfield, that you weigh all the factors. Love others, and the like.
Man, you just keep it going, don’t you?
Tennessee politicians, and this is to all of you, you make me want to move scratch my head and sigh these days.
You are losing me.
My grandfather, a Republican, would definitely agree with me and I’m a Democrat but we agreed on one thing. People deserve respect from judges to parents, to aunts to single mothers/fathers and to elected politicians (who will take criticism as they work for us for tax dollars) t0 abused mothers/fathers/kids .
You politicians are losing sight of pretty much everything.
[...] » On Campfield And All Kinds Of ParentsPosted 9 hours [...]
First, You need to read the bill. You are making some big assumptions without reading it first.
Next I ask you to contact me before you make assumptions that I have not talked to parents, devorce lawyers and even some judges. I have. Many admit their is a sexual bias.
Last you need to drop the assumption my bill is mandatory anything especially in cases of abuse. You can bring up every straw man argument you want. I was quite clear (Or so I thought) on the best interest of the child is paramount. Abuse will be taken in as a factor in deciding where a child should be placed.
95%.Say that number over and over and tell me their is no bias.
Thanks for your comment.
Now, from a different perspective, if you will allow. Having sat in courtrooms for years, I’ve seen a lot of abuse cases where men who were abusive, get a pat on the wrist and let go.
Sir, I’ve seen this more than not. My issue with this bill is mired in that there is already red tape for both men and women. As I said in this post, and I don’t really engage you that often, is that it seems to blanket issues without dealing with individual cases. That’s my problem. You claim here that is not the case. I have to take you at your word.
And, yes, I read it.
I believe you may have talked to folks or you wouldn’t have introduced it, but have you talked to both sides of the aisle? Fair question. I do believe that no elected official would introduce a bill willy-nilly without researching it first. So I give you that one.
Now, I’m glad to see you respond to that the best interest of the child is paramount. I see your side on this, but I also see a lot of court costs that average Americans won’t be able to afford.
I do apologize for touching a nerve, sir but having buried some battered women, you have touched a nerve with me as well.
Here are some DV stats: http://www.asafeplaceforhelp.org/batteredwomenstatistics.html
95 percent as well. It’s seems to be a common number.
Now, I realize, as I said in my post, that there are good and bad cases in both genders and things aren’t always skippy, but on the other hand, we already do have laws in place on this issue.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
And I will take you up on the offer regarding contacting your office in the future. I hope you meant it.
Any time.
Thank you once again. Next time I’m in Nashville, I’ll give you a call.
But, Newscoma, that 95% is a factiod, a meaningless number, unless it has some context. Anyone can throw it around, but it doesn’t say anything. Because, you know, if only 5% of men apply for primary custody of their children during a divorce, but they all get it, then it is not the case that some overwhelming number of men is dealing with discriminatory policies. On the other hand, if 100% of men apply for primary custody but only 5% get it, that shows something different. The numbers that would get me to agree that there’s a problem to be addressed (whether by legislation or by some other means) would be the percentages of men and of women who apply for primary custody and get it. If those numbers are relatively similar, there is no problem, and no need for legislation.
95% of men who apply for custody with no negative history do not get it.
Okay, Stacey.
You know, what I’ve been checking about today and as you are a legislator on this bill that I thought you might want to check on. If you look through my history, I just like your blog as it is a good way to communicate. I don’t always agree with it, but I think it’s okay as you are communicating.
I respect that.
You have the resources and so, as a taxpayer, I hope you can find what I’m asking as I couldn’t regarding gender-based custody about who files for full custody the most as I was working today, but I will check on it tomorrow.
What are the stats on who requests full custody, who requests joint custody and what are the courts doing regarding this with existing laws and how this will change with your bill?
What is the ratio for mothers asking for custody and fathers?
I think it’s significant, don’t you?
Seriously, I think we all need to know.
And, do have a link for your factoid?
Thanks. I think this will be a lively discussion for elected officials and taxpayers alike.
By the way, in this area, we lost our domestic violence shelter in the last couple of weeks. No editorial here, just saying.
Once again, thanks for commenting.
Wait … he said “assume”. You should delete his comment and block him from your site for using vulgar language. It’s just as bad as “asinine” isn’t it?
Heh.
Yes, I had to go there.
Anyway, I left this over at Cathy’s on her post re: this idiotic, and yes, asinine, piece of … legislation:
Stacey Campfield is a lunatic. He is doing nothing more than grandstanding, using far right conservative moral stances for his platform. This does nothing to further the discussion, which we need desperately, to get back to a better moral attitude overall, that sexual promiscuity and a sore lack of morals is at the root of just about everything that is wrong with our country and society today.
(Yes, I see you* holding your nose, rolling your eyes and sneering at me again. That I have lost friends because I will not back down on my opinion that immorality is killing us all is something that, sadly, I just have to put up with. But if you are honest with yourself, you would have to admit that wanton and immoral behavior is not good for anyone, especially our children.)
*I say “you” as in the generic reader here, no one individual in particular.
As a survivor of the child custody, visitation and support war, having fought on both sides of the table … and also having sat by and supported other parents of both genders on both sides of the table, I can readily attest to the fact that there exists little in the way of gender discrimination in the family courts. What does exist is a blindness on the part of the court as to what is the best interest of the child. It is too busy making sure that all the legal i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed to look at each family and their unique needs and situation.
More legislation is not what is needed. Moving the whole family court thing out of the court is. It is not a legal issue, it is a human issue, and the court is no place to be making decisions such as these.
LissaKay, exactly. You are right on about this.
Thank you so much for your comment.
“The single parent household is killing the development of children. While not always the case you can look at about any study and the single parent household will rank at the top as a factor or common denominator for a child’s failure.”
I have to disagree with those comments. They are offensive to every single parent out there who had sperm donors leave her and her child to fend for themselves and in turn, had to do the best they could with what they have.
Many children who grow up in a single parent household have gone on to lead “successful” lives. No child is EVER a “failure” and that terminology should not be used in context of trying to “look out for a child’s best interest.”
Let’s start with being positive and giving children a chance regardless of how many parents are truly involved in their raising. And why would we de-power our elected judges to have them determine who should be granted custody of raising a child.
There is a lot more than just money into bringing up a child, actually money is of the least importance in my opinion.
I know some of y’all are going to have a heart attack when you read my comment, but here goes. I agree with the principle of this bill. I am not knowledgeable enough to say for sure if the intent will be carried out properly, but all I can base it on is my own experience. Here’s what I posted on the Scene’s blog post about the same topic the other day:
I’ve heard all the arguments opposed to mandatory joint custody, and I still can’t wrap my head around it. I’m divorced and from the time she was 2, my daughter has spent one week at her dad’s and one week at my house. It might sound disruptive to some, but neither of us were the “primary” parent before the divorce — we both shared parenting responsibilities equally. It would have been incredibly unfair to my daughter, not to mention her dad, to make her live with me most of the time.
Which is EXACTLY what a judge tried to make us do. My ex and I both agreed she should split her time equally between us, and agreed on everything else, in fact, and a judge threw our divorce out and instructed us to write a parenting plan that had my daughter at my house the majority of the time.
What the hell kind of crazy world is that?
We finally got our divorce approved with the parenting plan that worked for our family, but it took a lot of work [and a new judge who trusted us, instead of made assumptions about the kind of parenting a father could do, despite all evidence to the contrary].
I KNOW there are cases of domestic abuse, etc. where one parent should be the predominant, or only, custodial parent. But I don’t understand why we can effectively throw presumption of innocence out the window here. That’s what we’re talking about — presuming that a parent is unfit without having to meet a standard of proof. That’s what happened to my ex our first trip through court. The judge [having never met him before] said to his face, “A child this age needs to live with her mother.” WTF???
I have a hard time agreeing with Campfield myself, but I think this is a pretty good bill.
Thank you for your comment Laura. I don’t necessarily agree but I appreciate your comment. Thanks for you perspective. I don’t think I agree but I do thank you for your angle.
I guess the part I don’t understand is, why does it take legislation for a judge to be able to act in the best interest of the child?
I just know that I personally saw a judge acting AGAINST our entire family’s best interest, so something seems wrong to me with the current system. I don’t know for sure that this bill will fix that, though.
Why does the world suck???????? [Deep thought for the morning.
]
Laura, that may be the question of the day. And, dangit, we had a rain out for our big puppy giveaway today, so my toes are in danger all weekend.
We have so much legislation that doesn’t work compacted on top of existing laws that also don’t work that sometimes I wonder if I should become a cavedweller. Of course, I couldn’t afford the taxes on my luxury cave, so there is that.
[...] that said, I’m finding that I’m fighting battles that I wish my elected politicians were fighting. When I bring it up, they basically pat me on my head to a large degree. That, my friends, is [...]