THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, October 9, 1995 TAG: 9510060017
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 40 lines
``Divorce, custody, child'' (editorial, Sept. 25) emotes well but fails to consider several factors involved in shared parenting.
First, midweek overnight visitation is generally not particularly helpful to the stability of the child. Ask any classroom teacher who has heard the lament of a child about the effect of such visitation on her or his school work and her or his life in general. Teachers tell me that midweek overnight visitation causes the child to suffer confusion, instability and a sense of being a pawn in the turmoil of the parents.
Second, consider the finances of the custodial spouse. You forget that the custodial spouse also has a monthly child-support obligation which is significantly increased as the noncustodial spouse's obligation is decreased. In most cases, the custodial spouse (generally the mother) is actually earning far less than the noncustodial spouse and the reduction of support caused by the midweek overnight visitation greatly exceeds the ``additional cost'' to the noncustodial spouse.
Third, by tying child support to days of visitation, it is guaranteed that the best interest of the child will be lost. As an attorney representing only women in divorce cases, I almost always see the father submitting visitation requests at the 110-day threshold. Many of these same fathers were at best marginally involved in the lives of their children prior to their awareness of the economic impact of the 110-day rule.
Your editorial is correct in stating that there are no easy answers to the modern American tragedy of divorce; but, the Court of Appeals majority understands the issues far better than the subject of your editorial, Michael Ewing, or the editorial writer.
CHARLES R. HOFHEIMER
Virginia Beach, Sept. 25, 1995 by CNB