TFRM Oct. 2018 Newsletter - Issue #3

October 201 8 ARTICLES: I N e e d a n Ag g re ssi ve La wye r: P a rt 2 Page 1 & 2

By Lori Barkus A Ch i l d ’ s S tru g g l e from a S te p -M om P oi n t of Vi e w Page 2-4

By M. C. Wh y d o som e fa th e rs a b a n d on th e i r ch i l d re n ?

Page 5-8

By David Vesper Ab ou t th e M ove m e n t Page 8 N a ti on a l P a re n ts O rg a n i za ti on O h i o P a re n ti n g Ti m e Re p ort Page 9- 1 5

By National Parents Org. Attorney Tip Page 16

By Tina C. Bennet, Esq.

L e tte r to th e E d i to r Page 1 6 S u i ci d e s a n d F a m i l y Cou rts: Part 1 Page 1 6

By J.W

Issue 3

I n e e d a n a g g re ssi ve fa m i l y l a w a ttorn e y: P a rt two Pause. Breathe. Funny how breathing is natural and automatic (and important), but, when we are scared, we forget all about it. You get served with papers, come how to an empty house or a message that the other parent wants to leave with your child. The first instinct is that you need to fight. And maybe you do. Sometimes a quick response is needed. But there also needs to be a plan.

This is the difference between a strategic lawyer and an aggressive lawyer. An aggressive lawyer will fight just to take money from you (some do this) or to prove how tough he or she is (many do this). Neither of these reasons is about serving you. Neither helps you or your children, and both reasons will result in draining your finances. How many times have you heard someone say, “I spent thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars in lawyer fees on my divorce, and nothing was done?”

A strategic lawyer will work with you. There should be a plan and a strategy from the very first meeting (an indepth, paid consultation. We’ll talk more about why free consultations aren’t in your best interest in a later post). A strategic lawyer will respond quickly and may respond aggressively, but there is a reason for the response.

Hiring a strategic lawyer is entering into a partnership. As the client, you are the first priority and decisions are made with your input. The goal is to find a resolution- which may mean a settlement or it may mean court. Unlike an aggressive strategy, strategic lawyering involves defining the possible outcomes, figuring out how to get there and communicating that to the client. A strategic lawyer who prioritizes you also looks for cost effective ways of doing things, rather than fighting about each and everything and adding it to your bill.

Strategic lawyering can also mean structured fees. Not necessarily fixed or flat fees, which may be possible in certain cases. But providing a budget for how much certain things will cost. This can allow you some planning, rather than scrambling to pay another large retainer request dropped on you from out of nowhere- the “pay me or I’m out of the case” approach. With some time to plan financially, there is less added stress to your already full emotional plate.

These are just some things to consider if you, or someone close to you is facing a family law situation. Children, family and home are the most important things in most of our lives. It’s scary enough to face the possible loss of any of these.

No one should have the added stressors of financial and emotional ruin.

B y L o ri B a ru k s

A Child’s Struggle from a Step-Mom Point of View Another summer has passed which means another year has passed. July 15 was a special date in our home, once upon a time, it was the date my husband purposed in 2010. We were married a month later. We both had been married before and waiting to have a wedding just wasn’t for us. Almost the minute we got married things began to change. I couldn’t see it then, but the storm was approaching.

My husband, a loving father, who always made himself available to his daughter and sacrificed for her before any court orders were entered. Him and his Ex only had a separation agreement up until 2010 which seemed to be what was best for the ex and not the child. My husband decided years before he met me when his daughter was ten he was going to try for more time. With his daughters 10th birthday approaching and her constantly asking to spend more time with him he filed for custody in 2010 only asking for more equal time. His intentions never were to take custody. The Ex immediately started to cause their child more stress and made me the middle man in their discussions instead of just coming up with something in mediation. Looking back, she was trying to manipulate me too by telling me bad things about my husband which were not true.

My husband decided that, after six months, the stress on his daughter was too much for a ten year old to handle. Almost immediately his daughter was talking court talk and asking why he was trying to take her from her mom. No matter how many times we explained what was going on by the time she came back she was back to where she was when she left. The last straw was the day her StepDad dropped her off at the end of our driveway in the rain for her to walk a quarter mile to our house. When she got in the house she fell to the floor, with pure weakness, and cried out “I don’t want my mom to go to the nuthouse. My Mom said if you take me from her she will go to the nuthouse.” This child was too weakened by stress to stand up.

My husband agreed to every other Sunday night, one week at Christmas, one at Spring Break, and more time in the summer. It was more time, so it was a

victory and with time things got back to normal. In 2013 shortly after my husband and I welcomed our first child, together, into the world. Big Sister was thrilled and loved her baby sister to pieces. Over the next year she begged to stay more. Knowing the hell, we had already been through we told her to talk to her Mom by this time she was twelve and came up with her Tuesday night supper visit to just be an overnight. The next Tuesday my Step-Daughter texted me to pick her up from school, so I did, and she spent the night. Her mother never called my husband about it and she never returned his, so we assumed it was ok.

We did this for the rest of the school year and throughout the Summer. My husband tried to get in touch with his ex over making this permanent, but she never responded. After much thought he decided to go back to court to make this permanent. After he filed, all of a sudden, the ex was ready to talk. This happened in July. My Step-Daughter continued to stay on Tuesday until he went to court in August. The Ex never showed up but the next Tuesday my StepDaughter told us that she knew the judge had said she was not to stay on Tuesday anymore or SHE would be in trouble.

Over the months ahead we heard from my Step-Daughter better court talk than an attorney and about private emails that were between my husband and his Ex. At the same time, we heard about her mother telling her “Why don’t you live with them since you love them so much” and “Why do you spend so much time kissing their butts.” Then there was mediation his Ex sat there for one hour screaming that everything was fine ‘till he married me. What she meant was until he married me she could manipulate and control him. After the first hour she said this is only about child support to him, funny that he never intended to change child support. The mediator suggested Friday through Tuesday every other week would be a good start.

This must have declared war to her because from this point forward the brainwashing began. The anger in my Step-Daughter was, and still is, unbelievable. Step-Daughter never had a good reason for her anger and nothing she said or did made any sense. At one point the Step-Dad got in my husband’s face, in front of the child, over braces. The child screamed at her daddy over these braces she was told he wouldn’t pay for, but that same day my husband paid his half in full. My husband was told he did not pay child support and that’s why she never had nice things like the other kids at school. None of these accusations were true. By May of 2014 the child was refusing to do visits. Only visiting here and there. By June she was lying about why she couldn’t come, or her mom was emailing lying for her. July 15, 2014, she came for her Tuesday and never came back. Court came in August she got to keep Tuesday and he got more time in the summer, but the damage had been done. My husband was blocked from all communication from that point on. I finally got through in a text after her baby brother was born, but right after we were blocked again.

In December 2015 we went to the school to see her and give her Christmas presents. We asked her about the blocking and she told us her mother told her she was not allowed to see or speak to us. We talked for awhile and as it was time for her to return to class I saw a Daddy and a Daughter hold each other with tears streaming down their faces. In the parking lot I received a text from her

He went back to court to try and get therapy, but by this time she was 16 and the court ordered monthly visits. Both mom and daughter ignored that order both lying every month about why she could not visit. At the end of the six months the judge refused to listen to the evidence and only ordered one therapy session. We knew it was over. He would have to wait for his daughter to come back on her own. My Step-Daughter believes this was her idea. A little girl that use to glow when she saw her daddy and use to write me the sweetest notes hates us, for now. My husband is only informed by the community about his own child. The mother refuses to help him. The school has been great at helping him with any information he needs, but that only started last year. We go to events even when we aren’t wanted. We are immediately met with a stone face and attitude from across the room. You can feel the hate. It is heartbreaking, but we keep going and we keep showing her that she is loved. My advice is to keep going and keep trying. We will always love her, support her, but most of all we will always be here waiting for her. It is time for a change so children do not have to choose one parent out of fear, but they are free to love both.

B y M . C.

We here at The Father’s Rights Movement openly offer support to fathers struggling with thoughts of suicide. We want to talk you. We want to help you! Please contact one of our crisis team members today, because you are Not Alone.

N a ti on a l S u i ci d e P re ve n ti on Li fe l i n e We can all help prevent suicide. The Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress, prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones, and best practices for professionals.

1 -8 0 0 -2 7 3 -8 2 55

“ W h y d o s o m e f a t h e rs a b a n d o n t h e i r c h i l d re n ? �

Many fathers run away from certain types of mothers because it would be a losing battle to deal with them. The crazier the mother, the farther away the father will go because he knows society just will not believe him. He understands that women can get away with things that men cannot. Some fathers will run to avoid trouble.

Then... you see a case where the mother is ticked off. She will call him names in front of their child. Gain their empathy because she is now all alone. All the while, she is programming the children to hate their father.

So, when the father thinks things have calmed down and tries to come back, the mother will display this gatekeeper mentality by denying him visitation.

After all, the attention is back on her now. So, she is trying to advance her cause among her social circle by displaying herself as the savior of her children.

Meanwhile, the father understands the situation has not changed and may either leave for good or try to make up for time lost with his child. He accepts the fact the mother will not change her attitude.

Now, the mother seeks social affirmation in order to justify her actions towards the father. Girlfriends and white knight guy friends will come to the rescue because this father's name has been dragged through the mud. The mother’s support system would go to great lengths to support the custodial interference by the mother to the father.

After a while, the mother senses victory against the father and celebrates her achievement. She continues to get the support and is, therefore, able to establish the "single mother" role that is championed by society. She celebrates both Mother's Day and Father's Day. She goes onto social media taunting the tough lifestyle of single parenting... even following single mother Facebook pages and posting their memes. The mother would even take credit for every achievement earned by the child. Every feature, look, and activity of the child is because of the "single mother" role that allowed her to overcome the odds. She may even interview for a "new" dad for her next relationship while, at the same time, tell her children that their "real" daddy doesn't love them anymore.

The father, either legally or socially, is basically banned from becoming a part his child's life. So, he leaves again and again. After all, who would want to endure that emotional and psychological abuse? He may go on with his life, remarry, and have more children of his own. He believes that his oldest child is better off without him because the child is emotionally conditioned to believe whatever the mother and her circle have said about him. To abandon the toxic relationship with the mother, the father feels compelled to abandon the child as well.

If Child Support is involved, it usually means that the transfer of wealth from one parent to another as an exercise of control for the recipient and submission

for the other. Control then alienates the father more from his own child. If he has not paid child support, he is now a deadbeat dad. Yet, you and I do not know if he could afford the payments. He is already paying for everything you need to sustain a home and his lawyer's fees, her lawyer fees, court administrative costs and court-ordered training. Many times, the father is in the arrears before the first payment is in effect because payments are retroactive to the time the mother filed.

Now, he realizes that he cannot afford this and maintain a house. He falls further behind. All the while, his ex is calling him a deadbeat. Now, the state gets involved and takes away his license and certifications. He can't perform at his job. He is now fired. His credit is ruined. He went from a six-figure salary to bankruptcy and facing jail time. So, when we see a “deadbeat dad,” can he afford it?

If domestic violence was alleged, it becomes the silver bullet tactic that would legally shut the father out of his child's life for good. In Alaska, we have more incentives for "victims" to claim abuse on a "perpetrator" without recourse and Due Process many times. Now, the father has a history for which the violence may have been reciprocated. But, we will never know who was the perpetrator or victim. All that matters in Alaska is the person requesting a Protective Order is automatically the "victim" and the accused is the "perpetrator." But, he doesn't file because who will believe him? He cannot even go to a Domestic Violence shelter himself in Alaska. But, she filed. She is now the "victim" in the relationship. He is now stereotyped.

Regardless of how the custodial interference occurred, the negative ramifications are the same: the child suffers most of all.

So, when we hear of deadbeat dad and perpetrator... was that the whole truth? Was it worth destroying someone else's life to make one person justified in their actions?”

The previous hypothetical story was in response to a woman that wrote to the Alaska Fathers’ Rights Movement. This woman’s friend had been deriding the father of her child through text messages. She could not understand why her friend would act this way and could see the strain it caused through the fatherchild relationship. Though he did not abandon his child, he was subjected to emotional and psychological abuse by his child’s mother. This emotional abuse towards the father caused transference onto the child. So, now the child suffers from emotional trauma as a result of the mother’s actions and words towards the father.

However, the mother’s actions are not only common, it is socially accepted and this behavior is often reinforced in Family Law in Alaska whereas the father abandoning his children are socially sanctioned and often admonished in Family Law in the form of child support.

Legislation, though passed into law in good faith, can have unforeseen negative social impact. Federal laws often mandate what the states can and cannot do. As a tool for states to comply, the Federal Government will often withhold additional funding or incentivize funding. So, states like Alaska pass their own legislation to comply with Federal guidelines. As a result of Alaska’s compliance for Federal laws, the state has created a perfect storm for such an environment to occur in our social circles for which one example scenario was described earlier in this article.

The scenario described is the weaponization of a combination of the Child Support Act of 1988, the Violence against Women Act of 1994, the abolition of the Tender Years Doctrine and Motherhood Preference in the 1970’s in favor of the “child’s best interest” standard and the lack of paternal rights for unwed fathers.

The Child Support Act of 1988 gave teeth to the Social Security Act of 1974 that forced states to develop child support guidelines and authorized the states to garnish paychecks to secure child support payments. Alaska adopted the flatrate Percentage-of-Income model in which only the noncustodial parent’s income is determined against the number of children and total time of yearly visitation.

This provides incentives for one parent to pursue a redistribution of familial wealth and encourage custodial interference since the less amount of visitation equates to more monthly child support payments. Though it is illegal under Alaska statutes for custodial parents to interfere with visitation, this is rarely enforced.

Since Alaska has adopted the requirements under the Violence against Women’s Act of 1994, Alaska has adopted domestic violence laws that were rated the worst in the United States by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) for the least possible threshold to claim abuse, the most incentives to file for Protective Orders, and the least amount of Due Process for the accused. In Alaska, Domestic Violence under the Preponderance of Evidence standard is a determining factor in all custody cases. This provides the incentives to file for Protective Orders in lieu of a custody battle. Then, the burden of proof falls on the accused to show the court that he or she is not an abuser and, therefore, a fit parent.

The abolition of the Tender Years Doctrine and the Motherhood Preference was intended for both parents to become equal under the law. Alaska state laws are written in non-gender specific language to provide the equal presumption between both parents. As a result, parents will go through great lengths to prove the other parent is unfit for custody. Often, this leads to high-conflict parental relationships and damages the mental health of their children.

This perfect storm of unintended social consequences has been perpetual since these laws were passed decades ago. The inability for legislators to react to social dynamics have cost the state millions of dollars and presents itself as a multi-generational social issue. The scenario in Part 1 was only one example of a series of complex issues that surround Family Law in Alaska. So, I urge state

legislators and those candidates that are running for state office to consider the consequences of their inaction.

It will take much courage for legislators to make a bold approach towards Family Law Reform and it starts with rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody between parents. The “child’s best interest” standard has been an ambiguous legal precedence that provides cowardly judges to adjudicate their decisions behind this standard in absence of a specific definition under AS 25.24.150(c), 1-9. The ambiguous language under AS 25.25.150 (c), 1-9 has created the notion of “mother-friendly” or “father-friendly” judges in Alaska. This is inconsistent and unjust to our children.

Even though the law appears to be egalitarian, the outcomes are not. Mothers retain either sole or primary physical custody 85% of the time. This encourages the “gatekeeper” mentality among custodial parents that have a negative impact on children and creates the social construct as seen in the story.

B y D a vi d Ve sp e r

AB O U T TH E M O VE M E N T The Fathers’ Rights Movement is a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support that affect fathers and their children. Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children’s mother – either after divorce or as unwed fathers. The movement includes women as well as men, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.

Most of the members of the Fathers’ Rights Movement had little prior interest in the law or politics. However, as they felt that their goal of equal shared parenting was being frustrated by the family courts, many took an interest in family law, including child custody and child support.

Since the 1 970’s the divorce laws in most western nations recognized fathers as real parents and both parents are financially responsible, was the emergence of custody battles. Before the 1 970’s child custody battles were almost unheard of in the United States.

Though it has been described as a social movement, members of the movement believe their actions are better described as part of a civil rights movement. Objections to the characterizations of the movement as a social movement are related to the belief that discrimination against fathers moves beyond the social sciences and originates in government intervention into family life.

Source: Description above from the Wikipedia article Fathers’ Rights Movement, licensed under CC-BY-SA. Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic.

N P O O h i o P a re n ti n g Ti m e Re p ort This Article comes from the National Parenting Organization and shows how Ohio Family Courts vary in their Shared Parenting Time evaluations and decisions.

I. Introduction A. About National Parents Organization National Parents Organization (NPO) advocates for children’s true best interests after parental separation or divorce. We are working to improve the lives of children and strengthen society by protecting every child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. We seek better lives for children through family court reform that establishes equal rights and responsibilities for fathers and mothers. More information about National Parents Organization can be found at NationalParentsOrganization.org.

B. Description of project The Ohio Revised Code requires each Ohio court of common pleas to adopt “standard parenting time guidelines” for dividing children’s time between the parents when parents are living apart (ORC 3109.51(F)(2)). Courts are empowered to deviate from this guideline schedule based on a number of statutorily-specified factors. These guidelines serve as a baseline for establishing a parenting time schedule and, in most cases, are explicitly specified as a default schedule, to be imposed when parents cannot agree on a different schedule.

NPO believes that the county standard parenting time guidelines play a very significant role in determining the parenting practices of separated parents, perhaps especially when parents come to the court without legal representation.

While parents can have reasonable confidence that courts will approve most schedules that are mutually agreed to by the parents, the default schedules influence parental choices; furthermore, parental agreements are “made in the shadow” of these default schedules. NPO was motivated to undertake this detailed study because Ohio’s counties’ standard parenting time rules strongly influence the actual schedules parents follow and those parenting arrangements are instrumental in determining the well-being of children of divorced and separated parents.

The Ohio Parenting Time Rule Project is not an evaluation of Ohio counties’ domestic relations courts’ actual patterns of awarding parenting time or the actual behavior of parents, which sometimes diverges from court orders. Courts do not compile records of the frequency with which any given parenting time schedule is ordered. Accordingly, NPO has no means of knowing how frequently courts in any county order a default (or any other) parenting time schedule. NPO’s Ohio Parenting Time Rule Project is an evaluation of the default parenting time rules that Ohio county courts provide.

C. Brief summary of results The results of the NPO review of Ohio counties’ local parenting time rules are shocking. While a handful of counties have parenting time rules that are aligned with the best scientific research about child well-being when parents are living separately, the vast majority do not. For reasons explained below, the NPO study focuses on “ordinary parenting time”, which we define as non-vacation, nonholiday time, and examines only the schedules that apply to “local” parenting time, for parents living in what the court considers close proximity. With respect to this ordinary parenting time, NPO has determined that: • Sixty-four of Ohio’s 88 counties have a parenting schedule that allows the children only two overnights and 60 hours or less with one of their parents in a two-week period. This means that the children are with their non-residential parent less than 20% of the ordinary parenting time. None of these counties’ schedules provide for the children to be with the non-residential parent on a school night.

(One other Ohio county provides a schedule only slightly enhanced from this outdated model, by adding one additional overnight with the non-residential parent in a two-week period. This still accords the children just 20% of ordinary parenting time with one of their parents.)

• Thirteen Ohio counties provide default schedules that allow the children 4-5 overnights with the non-residential parent and substantially more time with the non-residential parent, between 25% and 30%.

• Only three Ohio counties provide default schedules that allow the children equal, or nearly equal, time with each parent.

II. Parenting Time and Child Well-being Divorce or separation of parents is an adverse childhood experience, which can, if not handled properly, contribute to long-term health and behavioral problems for children. There is a large and growing body of scientific evidence establishing that, when parents are living separately, the best strategy for minimizing the risk to children is to ensure that both parents are kept fully engaged in the children’s lives, including being directly involved with the day-to-day child care responsibilities. (See “NPO Shared Parenting Research Resources” for citations and links to some of the most recent, compelling research.)

What this research shows is that, while divorce is an adverse childhood experience, children of divorced parents who share physical custody to a very significant degree do not suffer long-term adverse effects. In fact, on all measures of child well-being, they score about as well as children of parents living together. And they score much higher than children raised in sole physical custody arrangements.

This research confirms what common sense has always declared: both parents matter! We harm our children by placing one parent in a secondary role.

With respect to the value of shared physical custody, two sorts of cases deserve special discussion. Those unfamiliar with the research often believe that, while shared physical custody is best in many cases, it is not appropriate for infants and toddlers and also when parents are in conflict, including simply about whether to engage in shared parenting.

Shared Physical Custody of Infants and Toddlers: Recent research endorses the value even to infants and toddlers of spending significant time with each parent, including overnights.3 However, infants, toddlers, and very young children perceive time differently than do older children and need more frequent times with each parent in order to develop a strong bond.

Shared Physical Custody in Parental Conflict Cases: Many people, unfamiliar with recent research, acknowledge that shared physical custody is beneficial to children when parents are able to cooperate closely and co-parent in harmony but believe it is inappropriate when parents are in conflict. Furthermore, failure to agree on shared physical custody is often taken as dispositive evidence that parents can’t co-parent their children. Contemporary research undermines this view.4 In fact, even when parents are in (non-violent) high-conflict relationships, shared physical custody is beneficial to children.

I I I . M e th o d o l o g y a n d L i m i ta ti o n s A. Scope NPO’s review of Ohio counties’ parenting time rules was restricted to what we call ‘ordinary parenting time’, which we define as non-vacation, non-holiday time.

There are two reasons for this. First, including vacation and holiday time renders the analysis significantly more complex. But, much more importantly, the value of parenting time is not measured merely in hours or overnights. What is important in order for children to have a full parent/child relationship with both parents is for both parents to be engaged in the ordinary tasks of child rearing: providing meals, ensuring that homework is done, getting children ready for school, being involved in the children’s routine activities. Holidays and vacations are, by definition, exceptions to the ordinary rhythms of family life. To the degree that a child’s time with a parent is restricted to these times, the parent is not fully engaged in the child rearing activities. Accordingly, NPO focused this study on ordinary parenting time.

Because the feasibility of parents sharing equally in the physical custody of their children depends on the distance between the parents’ households, this study is restricted to an examination of the county court’s rules that apply for parents living in close proximity, which is determined differently by different counties.

B. Counties Age-Specific Parenting Time Schedules Forty-one of Ohio’s 88 counties’ standard parenting time schedules are age specific—providing different schedules for children of different ages. The age categories vary widely between these 41 counties. To compare the parenting time rules of counties with age-specific schedules with those counties with schedules

that are not age-specific, NPO chose the age category that covered the broadest range of ages. In each case, we have indicated the age category that was used in evaluating the parenting time rule.

C. G a th e ri n g D a ta NPO collected current local parenting time rules from each of Ohio’s 88 counties. Often, these were available on the county court’s website. For those counties that did not post their local rules on the Internet, NPO acquired copies from the Ohio Supreme Court’s page of local rules.

In one case, the local parenting time rule was not available either from the county’s website or the Ohio Supreme Court website. In that case, NPO requested and received a hard copy of the county’s parenting time rule through the mail.

D . D a ta v a l i d a ti o n The data collected were verified by two NPO researchers, working independently, and reconciling any discrepancies in their analyses. After the data were verified internally, NPO shared the data with the Ohio Judicial Conference and the Ohio Supreme Court. At NPO’s request, the Ohio Judicial Conference shared the data with all Ohio county courts that handle domestic relations cases. NPO requested that these courts review the data to ensure the accuracy of the data on which NPO’s evaluation would be made. Eight county courts responded to this request. In two cases, there were updated parenting time schedules that were either recently put into effect or soon to go into effect but had not been posted on the county court’s website. NPO reviewed and verified—correcting where necessary—all data about which we received information from the county courts.

NPO is dedicated to ensuring the accuracy of the data on which its analysis and grading are based. Reports of errors or material changes in courts’ local parenting time rules should be sent by email to the report’s lead author, Donald C. Hubin, Ph.D. Online versions of this report and the online interactive map associated with it will be updated in a timely fashion.

E . Cri te ri a for E va l u a ti on Time and Overnights: The focus of NPO is on improving child well-being by promoting the true sharing of parental rights and responsibilities when parents live apart. Accordingly, the primary factors on which NPO’s evaluation is based are the time and number of overnights that children were accorded with the non-residential parent in a two-week period.

Parental Equality - Language and Concepts: In addition, though, NPO seeks to promote parental equality. Accordingly, our evaluation takes into account whether the parenting time rule uses language that denigrated one parent’s status with respect to the children. Except in unusual cases, parents do not visit with their children and language that describes a parent’s time with a child as ‘visitation’ is offensive and demeaning. It encourages the mistaken perception that one parent is the real parent and the other has a second-class status as a parent. We are long past the time when we should be conceptualizing post-separation parenting in this way.

More than a handful of county courts demonstrate that they have not really understood the research that led many states, including Ohio, to remove talk of ‘visitation’ when discussing time the child is in the care of a parent. Numerous local rules have statements such as:

● “Parenting time is a time for children to do things with the parent they do not reside with”; ● “Companionship is a time for children to be with the non-residential parent”; or, ● “Parenting time is an opportunity for the nonresidential parent to spend time with and be involved in the activities of the children”.

This avoids the use of ‘visitation’ language but does not engage in the conceptual change that the research supports. If one thinks the problem is only with the word ‘visitation’, it is easy to think of the change as a pointless nod to political correctness. In fact, the research is urging us to change the way we think—not simply the way we talk—about time children spend in the care of a parent.

Children have “parenting time” with each of their parents, not with only one. The contrast is not between custody and parenting time (understood as a euphemism for ‘visitation’). The only contrast is between the parenting time of one parent and the parenting time of the other parent. Whether or not these periods are equal in length, they should be recognized by the law as being equal in the nature of the relationship and the parenting taking place.

Ag e S e n si ti vi ty: Research confirms the commonsense judgment that age-sensitive parenting schedules are appropriate. Infants and toddlers need more frequent time with each parent in order to bond with the parent. As children get older, their relationship with each parent can sustain longer periods apart. In light of the research supporting age-sensitive parenting schedules, NPO considers it a positive factor when a county’s parenting time rule is appropriately age sensitive.

Some counties’ parenting time schedules were minimally age sensitive, with very crude age categories. This is not the sort of age-sensitivity that is supported by research on child wellbeing. Furthermore, being appropriately age sensitive does not mean depriving one parent of significant parenting time with young children. Doing so is not supported by research on outcomes for children.

P a re n ta l E q u a l i ty - Transportation: Fifty-four of the counties’ local rules specify that the transportation of the children as they move between their homes with each of their parents is to be shared equally. Eight counties’ rules specify that transportation is to be shared equally except for short evening periods, when the non-residential parent is responsible for picking the children up and returning them. Twelve county rules do not explicitly specify which parent is responsible for transportation. Unfortunately, 1 3 counties have rules specifying that the nonresidential parent is responsible for all of the transportation to allow the children to receive the care and companionship of each of the parents.

NPO believes that both parents have a responsibility to facilitate their children’s opportunity to enjoy time with each parent. While it might be reasonable to have a parent provide all transportation for short, midweek parenting time in those cases where that parent does not exercise this time at his or her own home, it is inappropriate to impose on one parent only all of the responsibility for the exercise of parenting time.

Parental Guidance: The Supreme Court of Ohio has published a useful guide to help divorcing parents construct a parenting time schedule that will work for their family, Planning for Parenting Time: Ohio’s Guide for Parents Living Apart. NPO considers it a desirable feature of

a county’s parenting time rule to include a reference to or significant text from this pamphlet in order to assist parents in creating their own parenting schedule.

E xp l i ci t G e n d e r B i a s: One criterion for evaluation was applicable to only one of Ohio’s counties’ parenting time rules. Van Wert County’s “Standard Rules for Residential and NonResidential Parents and the Allocation of Certain Parental Rights and Responsibilities” (revised 1 /1 /07) is a disturbing outlier. It scores in the worst category of each other criterion (time and overnights; use of ‘visitation’ language, absence of age-sensitivity, etc.) with the sole exception that it provides that transportation shall by shared equally by the parents. In this, it has a small handful of companions. But the Van Wert local rule was the only one in which NPO found explicitly gendered language! The rule says, “The father shall have visitation as follows I” (p.

65) and “The mother shall retain the child/children as follows I” (p. 66). If there was ever a justification for such explicitly sexist language, that day is long past. This is a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and is in clear contradiction to Ohio Revised Code §31 09.03, which specifies: When husband and wife are living separate and apart from each other, or are divorced, and the question as to the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of their children and the place of residence and legal custodian of their children is brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, they shall stand upon an equality as to the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of their children and the place of residence and legal custodian of their children, so far as parenthood is involved. (ORC §31 09.03, emphasis added).

F. Cou n ti e s wi th M u l ti p l e S ch e d u l e s a n d N o D e fa u l t Seven Ohio counties8 have parenting time rules with multiple schedules, none of which is indicated as the default for children of a given age. For these counties, NPO has declined to provide an overall grade for the county’s parenting time rule. To understand why, one must recall the nature of NPO’s Ohio Parenting Time Rule Project.

As was indicated earlier, the Ohio Parenting Time Rule Project is not an evaluation of the parenting schedules that are actually awarded by courts. Ohio courts do not collect aggregate information on actual parenting time orders. Because this project evaluates the default parenting time schedule and these seven counties do not have such a default schedule, a grade for these counties’ local parenting time rules would be meaningless and potentially misleading.

In a number of counties with multiple schedules, the quality of the schedules varies widely—some providing equal or nearly equal parenting time and some providing only the old standard “every other weekend and one evening a week” model. As a guide to readers, NPO has, when possible, indicated a grade that each of the schedules in these seven counties would receive if it were a default schedule.

I V. Re su l ts A. G ra d e s Below are all of the counties listed by the grade NPO assigned to their local parenting time rule.

A Ashtabula Tuscarawas A Jefferson B + (none) B (none) B - Guernsey C+ Athens Clermont Cuyahoga Lake Licking Morgan C (none) C- Butler Erie Hamilton Logan Richland Scioto Vinton D + Pickaway Portage D Adams Allen Ashland Auglaize Brown Champaign Clark Clinton Columbiana Coshocton Crawford Darke Defiance Delaware Fairfield Fulton Gallia Geauga Greene Hancock Hardin Harrison Henry Holmes Huron Jackson Lawrence Lorain Lucas Marion Medina Mercer Miami Monroe Montgomery Morrow Muskingum Noble Ottawa Paulding Perry Pike Preble Putnam Ross Sandusky Shelby Stark Summit Trumbull Union Washington Wayne Williams Wood D - Carroll Hocking Madison Meigs Seneca Wyandot F Van Wert Additional Grades can be found at the National Parents Organization website.

V. Con cl u si on s Ohio courts are failing our children. Ohio law directs courts to choose a parenting time schedule that will be in the best interest of the children (ORC 31 09.051 ). Research on child well-being when parents live apart indicates that, in the vast majority of cases, children do best when they enjoy at least 35% of their time and overnights with each parent. And, the more closely parenting time approaches approximate equality, the better children generally do.

In light of the best scientific research on child well-being, and given the role that default schedules play in determining actual parenting schedules, National Parents Organization concludes that Ohio has a very long way to go in order to achieve the goal of promoting children’s best interest. The overwhelming majority of Ohio counties have default parenting schedules that deprive the children of a full parent-child relationship with one parent. We now know that this approach to separated parenting is very seldom in the best interest of children.

Only three Ohio counties—Ashtabula, Jefferson, and Tuscarawas—have default parenting time schedules that provide the children with equal access or nearly equal to both parents.

NPO congratulates these counties for aligning their default parenting time schedules with the best scientific research concerning the well-being of children whose parents are living apart.

A handful of other counties are making some attempts to facilitate children’s ability to benefit from the active involvement of both parents, though to a lesser degree than Ashtabula,

Jefferson, and Tuscarawas.

Disturbingly, 64 of Ohio’s 88 counties have default parenting time schedules that fit the outdated “every other weekend and one evening a week” model, or are even worse. This affords the children practically no ordinary parenting time with one of their parents.

Counting the number of counties imposing various default parenting time schedules provides important information about how Ohio’s 88 county courts of common pleas address this issue—how many of them are adjusting their default schedules in light of the recent research on the well-being of children whose parents are living separately. It does not, however, provide a picture of how many Ohio families are subject to each of the different default parenting schedules. To address this question, NPO used the latest (201 7) population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Of the approximately 11 .5 million Ohio residents, approximately 9.7 million live in counties with a single default parenting time schedule.1 0 Of this number, almost 6 million are subject to default parenting schedule that accords children only two overnights and 60 or fewer hours in a two-week period with one of their parents. This means that more than 60% of Ohio’s families are, by default, subject to a parenting time schedule that is outdated, contraindicated by scientific evidence, and unjustifiably denies them a full parent/child relationship. Children in these families are, by default, denied any significant amount of ordinary parenting time with one of their parents.

At the other end of the scale, only about 2% of Ohio families—about 1 90,000 people—are living in counties that presumptively afford the children an approximately equal number of overnights and amount of time with each of their parents.

For a system that claims to be aimed at promoting the best interest of children, and in light of the best current research on child well-being, this is a distressing result. Ohio can do better.

Ohio must do better. We owe it to our children.

VI . Ab ou t th e Au th ors D on a l d C. H u b i n , P h . D ., is on the National Board of National Parents Organization and the Chair of the Ohio Chapter of NPO. He is a professor emeritus of philosophy at The Ohio State University and Director of the Ohio State University Center for Ethics and Human Values. Dr. Hubin is the corresponding author for this report.

F ra n k G l a n d orf, M . S . computer and information science from The Ohio State University, is a member of National Parents Organization. He is a software developer from southern Ohio.

J u l i a W. Ca rp e n te r-H u b i n , M . A. public policy and administration, is the Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Planning for The Ohio State University. She is a member of National Parents Organization.

Attorn e y Ti p of th e M on th Here is a tip for texts that you want to introduce at trial or attach to petitions or to show your attorney.... you need to type in the date and then the time and then your message.

This way you don’t have to chase down the date or time it’s right inside the message so you can screenshot what you want to prove your point.

Tell your people to always respond to a text message with “received” if the other side is merely sending you information and again insert date and time within the message.

B y Ti n a C. B e n n e t, E sq .

Le tte r to th e E d i tor: Please send all Letters to the Editor to cdoran@tfrm. We will Print only 2 letters per month.

S u i ci d e s a n d F a m i l y Cou rts: P a rt 1 As I sit and contemplate the outline for this article, the words, the data, the research, and the many fathers who have fallen at the hands of our family courts, never to be seen again, my eyes are filled with tears. To think about the senseless and unnecessary loss of a father to a child, my heart grows even heavier. In the United States, our fathers are facing a war in the family court system, an adversarial system, functioning on the Tender Year Doctrine, is creating so much stress upon our fathers that they literally feel as if suicide is their only way out.

In 201 5, The Office of National Statistics reports that divorced men are almost three times more likely to take their own lives, then married men. Additionally, research conducted by the Sociology Department at The University of California, reports that divorced men are nearly 9.7 times more likely to kill themselves than comparable divorced women . More simply stated, for every divorced woman that commits suicide, over nine divorced men kill themselves.

The next question to pose is, why? Why are divorced men killing themselves at such significantly increased rates? Perrault and Farrell put forth, that the Family Court System in the US, assume that the bond between a woman and her children is stronger than that between a man and his children, where by custody is often awarded primarily to the mother, versus equally among both father and mother. Secondly, anger with the judicial bias and process, leaves fathers with not only the loss of their children, but anger as they struggle with the court ordered transfer of individual property, money, and belongings acquired throughout the marriage to the female. Vexatious litigation, loss of children, and the loss of property spirals into resentment towards the spouse and “the system.” Bitterness, anxiety, and depression, reduced self-esteem, and a sense of “life not worth living” replaced in a once happy male. As depression and poor mental health are known markers of suicide risk, it may well be that one of the fundamental reasons for the observed association between divorce and suicide in men is the impact of post-divorce court sanctioned “arrangements”.

B y J . W.