THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, April 26, 1996 TAG: 9604260013
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
A General Assembly bill to create a legal presumption in favor of joint custody when parents divorce is proving as contentious as many family breakups.
The National Child Support Advocacy Coalition opposes the presumption. It recently mailed lawmakers a letter denouncing a handout distributed during the winter session.
Those handouts listed prominent individuals and organizations alleged to support the bill. But the coaltion says several do not. Interviews confirm that cocontention.
``The APA has not endorsed the bill and has taken no position on joint custody at all,'' said a spokesman for the American Psychological Association, which was listed.
``There has been no position or testimony in favor of the bill,'' said a spokesman for Judge David Gray Ross, director of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, who also made the list. And so forth.
No one is stepping up to claim ownership of the handout. Opponents of the bill say it was part of a packet that they saw being distributed by a member of a group. The group denies ownership. The bill's sponsors - Sen. Mark Earley and Del. Randy Forbes, both of Chesapeake - appear to have been unaware of its existence.
On this or any other bill, supporters do damage to their cause and to the legislative process when zealotry prompts them to stretch or bend the truth. Custody decisions are far too important and have too much impact on individual lives to be decided under a cloud of misinformation.
Unquestionably, custody arrangements are best in which mothers and fathers share responsibility and treat each other with dignity. Nudging judges to consider that possibility isn't a bad idea; most probably do.
The trouble with a ``presumption'' in favor of joint custody is that it might lead judges to mandate the arrangement between couples who could not make it work. In such cases, joint custody might simply reduce the child support paid by one parent, without truly benefitting the child.
Presumptions are scant in the custody law. That is as it should be. In an earlier era mothers were presumed to be the better custodian of a child ``of tender years.'' Correctly, that presumption no longer exists.
Writing in the spring issue of Family Law News , Richard Klima, a family-law attorney from Manassas, notes: ``. . . parents who have separated from one another, and who want to obtain custody of their children, often find it very difficult to think about what is best for their children before they think about what they want themselves.''
Interest groups, and legislators as well, should make sure that their first priority in these cases is neither political agendas nor what's fair for parents, but what's best for children. by CNB