Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Ana Beatriz Cholo: Grieving for Two Little Boys I Never Knew
Dr. Irene S. Levine: Children of Divorce and Their Friendships
Opinion: Tenn. Legislator Who Wants Divorced Parents to Always Get Equal Parenting Time Has No Idea What He's Talking About
Filed under: Opinions
Divorce is hard on kids, and a new law forcing parents to split custody down the middle would make it even harder. Credit: Getty Images
The bill, which is in committee, is drawing standing room-only crowds and appears to be dividing parents right across gender lines, the Tennessean reports. Mothers are protesting what they see as a law that could force women to stay in abusive relationships, and some fathers are lauding the bill, saying current divorce laws in the state prevent many dads from having meaningful relationships with their children.
If the bill makes it through the Tennessee House and Senate, that state would become the only one with a so-called gender-neutral custody policy. I'm all for gender-neutral policies and laws -- as long as they aren't crazy, which this one absolutely is.
Proponents of the bill say it would eliminate nasty custody battles and, in the end, give kids what they need: Equal time with both parents, not a custody arrangement that makes sense for the parents' logistics. In theory, they're right. Divorce is disruptive enough without the added emotional distress of, in some cases, drastically reducing the time children spend with one particular parent.
And dads do tend to lose out more often than not. Traditionally, most children remain with their mother and spend a predetermined amount of time with their father. Shuttling between two households can be hard on kids, especially small ones -- that's why some couples are opting for what's called "bird's nest custody," which is when the children remain in the family home and the parents come and go. Even notoriously fractious couples such as Jon and Kate Gosselin are choosing this option in an effort to mitigate the upset caused by their split.
Gender roles have shifted dramatically over the past several decades. But while, in most cases, it no longer makes sense to just award Mom full custody of the kids and be done with it, there are nuances to consider when parents end their marriages.
What happens if Dad or Mom decides to take a job in a city or state hundreds of miles away? What happens if the two live in the same city but not the same school district? What happens when one parent fears she or he can't prove that abuse is taking place in the household, and so decides to remain in a dangerous environment in order to maintain a relationship with the children?
All of these scenarios are realistic. And a law that doesn't take into account the individual subtleties of a family's situation is one that should never make it onto the books. Not to mention the fact that giving parents no other option besides the nuclear one of proving that the other is unfit could lead to vicious, protracted and in some cases, fabricated, court cases.
Tennessee Rep. Mike Bell (R) tells the Tennessean he proposed the bill in order to make parents think twice before pursuing divorce. While his sentiment is admirable, it is misguided at best. This proposed law can only serve to pit parents against one another -- even in amicable splits -- and will make life harder, not easier, for children of divorce.
Related: Divorce Vouchers -- the Gift You Don't Want to Be Getting
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- This is not a question. But their NO!!!!! such thing of a perfect parent like every thing in all our life is a learning experience.One thing we all pa...
- Can you help me with my 4 year old autistic son Myles' Petition for Free Autism Education in the Public School System
- Will Kim Kardashian Make a Good Mom?












ReaderComments (Page 1 of 7)
3-17-2010 @ 6:09PM
Heidi said...Looks to me like the author tried to look at both sides. I've known families that fall into many areas of the spectrum mentioned in the article. I know Dads who do their best, only to get screwed over by the vindictive ex who uses visitation as a weapon and who has her boyfriend move in & not get married so that the income consideration (for welfare, etc.) doesn't change. I know women whose ex's could care less, either about the kids or about making an effort to make child support payments and hide income so they don't have to pay more. Ultimately I support anything that will benefit the kids who aren't at fault for the divorce in the first place. The best thing for the kids is parents who put away their bitterness and put the needs of their kids first. At least equal custody addresses the need to give children equal access to both parents in a way that works for that particular family.
Reply
3-17-2010 @ 6:41PM
Nancy said...What's the point in commenting on the article if you haven't actually taken the time to read it?
Reply
3-18-2010 @ 5:44AM
mei chi wong said...Whomever gets the kids for however long , they need to read an important blog www.alwaysrightneverwong.blogspot.com very enlightening.
Reply
3-18-2010 @ 1:33PM
Dan said...The only reason's that "These" kinds of mom's would oppose this is because by sharring time equally would LOWER the amount of child support that they would recieve from the Fathers. A Good parent would WANT the children to know both Parents. GOOD for you Tennessee, I hope that this will catch and be the Universal Norm.
Reply
3-20-2010 @ 6:07PM
Linda said...Dan you have "hit the naiil on the head" very good comment from someone who works in the Court system and has saw a lot of vindictiveness. It is not about the children at all- it's about getting even to them- the "child's best interest" is never thought of by them! Keep the good comments coming!
3-21-2010 @ 2:45PM
kathy said...i seriously doubt most men can handle 6 month of the screaming, of the sickness..of the rides to soccor practice, dance, baseball, and still keep their careers in a good line of sucess...women give up a lot to raise their children..chances of vacations, (men would you give up your week of fishing..?? hunting, snowmobiling, or would that be the week you would give the wife the kids...showing your as selfish as you accuse women of being....making lunches, dinners, breakfasts...give up a social life in the 6 months you would have custody??? would your girlfriend do the brunt of the work or even put up with them, without the marriage ring...you all want a better relationship, i agree you should..but first take the kids for 2 months and see if you can do the job... then make the decision on who get them when and how often...maybe you women out there will like the 6 months off the job...and only have them on week ends when you can be the 'GOOD GUY" and not the one saying no all the time...and beware...6 month off of raising kids and having time on your hands might just catch on with moms....omg even a social life again.....lol... yes i was divorced...and he could of come over anytime...but chose to disappear instead, showing up when they were in their 30s...wanting a relationship...and no..they walked away this time...leaving him...alone and old and sick...without regret....
3-21-2010 @ 2:38AM
I READ the story. said...Dan made a good comment, and Linda agreed.
Dan has one star and Linda has three.
The people who agree with this biased writer don't even care. They just hate you if you have a penis, because you're automatically a criminal, rapist, spousal abuser, etc... Just pointing out the hypocrisy. That's all, Seacrest out.
3-30-2010 @ 4:29PM
Lee said...Kathy, your comment is a blanketed comment that does not apply to all. I am a divorced father from a divorced home myself. I have my child 5 days a week and I pack his lunch, bathe him, play with him, read to him, go to his school functions, make sure he has hair cuts, dentists visits, doctors visits. I provide him with his clothes, toys, extra curricular activities and I don't ask for a dime from anyone else.
I have had him this way for the past 4 years and it has worked out just fine. Your comment is a stupid comment based on your own experiences. I haven't taken a vacation or sick day for myself in case I need them for when my child is sick or has a day off and I have to be with him. I know several other dads who do the same and have these "moms" who are lazy and do the bare minimum. Not every dad is a dead beat dad. I know more dead beat moms spending their child support on getting their nails done or out whoring around on the town rather than spending time with their kids.
Think before you speak. I know it may be hard but your life isn't everyone else's life.
3-18-2010 @ 1:07PM
Maureen said...In reading the proposed bill, it says the bill wouldn't "prohibit both fit parents from voluntarily entering into a parenting plan that does not give the child equal time with each parent."
It seems to me that the law would step in only if parents can't come to a voluntary custody agreement.
I have mixed feelings about such a law because family situations are so different, but I just thought it should be pointed out that there would be no forced 50/50 custody unless the parents can't figure it out on their own.
Reply
3-18-2010 @ 2:49PM
Mike said...The author says this law won't "take into account the
individual subtleties of a family's situation". Actually, since this law only changes the existing presumption of the courts, all the subtleties of a family are still taken into account - just as they always are. ~ The common presumption, such as in Illinois,
is for the children to drop from nightly time (bath, homework, prayers, reading) with the soon-to-be non-custodial parent (almost always, the father) to a mere 4 nights out of a month (Every Other Weekend overnights and a 3- to 4-hour 'visit' in the
middle of week, throughout the school year). Child development specialists and family therapists have spoken out against this 'child-unfriendly' presumption of our courts, to no avail. Meanwhile, experts agree that there are NO studies that show Equal Parenting Time to be hurtful to children. So why should we not at least have a 'presumption' that does not hurt children, rather than one that does?! ~ In a nutshell, these type of bills find footing because our family courts refuse to presume child-friendly parenting schedules at the outset, which then fuel the divorce-conflicts.
Reply
3-20-2010 @ 2:20PM
Marie Jarrett said...My ex and I had two households that the kids went between he had them half the time because his work schedule allowed for it but when his work schedule changed so did the way he wanted the kids at his house he felt that with the hours he worked it would not be fair to the kids for them to be at his house if he wasn't. Ours was an amicable divorce and our state had us go to parenting classes and if we didn't go our divorce would have been denied--- I have seen both sides of this issue and ours was a very unique case where we both agreed the children came first but so many times there are parents who do use the kids as bargaining tools and that is so sad but there dad was a huge part of their life and still is and with some of the health problems he has now I know every moment they have with him is precious I would never deny that relationship children need that Father figure in their life. Besides if the relationship is abusive enough there are laws out there now designed just for children and they can have their own lawyer to handle their case I have seen this happen with a niece she lost custody of her kids because of drugs and there isn't any chance that she can get them back and I know it wasn't the children's father that pushed the issue DHR was involved. Her children had two different fathers. One child is with the Paternal grandparents and the other child is with the father. So each case is different. Those mothers who abuse the system well they make it hard on those mothers who are really trying to keep their children first.
Reply
3-20-2010 @ 2:26PM
jyh2125 said...The majority of women do NOT want to divorce but abusive relationships and affairs makes it hard to stay. Until a man can carry a child for 9 months and stop abusing women the custody should go to the mother. Law ties the child support payments to the number of nights that the father has a child; consequently, a father looks at the $$$ instead of what is best for the child. Achild should lay their heads down in the same place every night....not going back and forth.
Just an FYI I am not talking about men who stand up and do the right thing
Reply
3-20-2010 @ 3:42PM
Joe said...Why is "doing the right thing" always seem to that good ole support check?
3-20-2010 @ 4:04PM
jotwinowski said...I am sorry to tell you that men are not the only ones who abuse children. From what we read, there are nearly as many women as men who are abusive. And why is it that "equal" time with the children is somehow impossible if one parent has to move because of job requirements? Women have been taking their children and moving to different states and even different countries for their jpbs, their families or sometimes their new boyfriends without a thought for the father's rights - or the children's neds; why is this syddenly a problem now?
3-20-2010 @ 4:41PM
Misha748 said...Are you stupid!!! You said that until a man can carry a child for 9 months and stop abusing woman that the child must go to the mother. I am a woman and i think that what you have written is the most stupidest thing that I have ever read. 1st off, in this society we woman have struggled for so long with getting EQUAL rights and i am not going to let some dumb girl who wants out of a relationship to ruin the image that we females are dumb, mean, and vindictive. There is a guy I like, he is a nice guy, does tons of volunteer work, and extremely gentle. He is divorced and has a daughter, and he only gets to see her 2 times a week and every other weekend he gets her for a day, which amounts to 10 days a month. Supposedly, his Ex says he can see her any time he wants, but she moved 100 miles away, so that it is a hardship for him to see her. With his work schedual and her living so far away, sometimes he doesnt even get to see her on the schedualed days, because his Ex played the courts and just to pay the child support he has to work 2 jobs, he works as a teachers assistant full time during the school week and then takes a second job as a transporter at a hospital. His ex is now a stay at home mom and doesnt have to work because he is supporting her. He doesnt even want to think about ever marrying again because he cant afford it because of his daughters support check, but she, the ex has no such problems because she doesnt have to think about if it is economical to marry again for the second time, because even if she remarried she would still get his check. And he is also worried that if he married again the second girl might do the same thing, because of her he is to cautious to find the right someone and she has it all.
Also, the retarded thing you said "until a man can carry a child for 9 months" Guess what, until the woman of this country wanted equal rights there were high weight lifting rules for being qualified to being a police officer, and those kept woman from being police officers and they changed that rule so that woman would have equal rights. Well, the problem is that we cant make rules that can change who can carry a child. So basically you want to make laws that say that a man should not have any custody for his child because he has a penis, which in fact is sexist, and i bet you are one of those crazy individuals that support womans rights and cry out about womans rights being violated and how men are so sexist but you never look at your self as being sexist. There are some basic things that obviously you were not told. 1st a man cant carry a child for 9 months, not because he is a bad person, but, DUH he has no vagina and not uterus and there for does not have the sexual organs that would carry a child.
Another thing is that some woman can be mean and vindictive just as much as men can. Have you ever heard the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" That is because when you have pissed off a woman or if you hate her there is nothing scarier. I know this from the many times that my mom is mad and you can hear her screaming from down the street, or so it seems. As young children we used to flinch and hide any time we heard mom screaming because it would start with her being mad at my mom or older brother, and soon she had something mean and vindictive to say to everyone in the entire house.
SO KEEP YOUR SEXIST, IGNORANT BULL SHIT TO YOUR SELF.
FROM THE WOMAN SCORNED, ME
3-20-2010 @ 2:28PM
Jody Gilbertson said...Some of you who whine that "mom doesn't want this because she won't get child support"-that's right-the kids will be half at dad's and half at her place. But Mom will end up being 100% responsible for purchasing ALL their clothes, toys, books, school supplies, dental & medical expenses, taking time off work to go to medical appointments and so on. Dad will be gleeful that nasty ol' Mom (who threw him out, no doubt) is now 100% on the hook for the kids expenses while he is off the hook for any of it. I can just see it, pissy ol' Dad will refuse to spend a dime on the kids to punish Mom financially. This legislator is a moron.
Reply
3-20-2010 @ 3:42PM
Joe said...It is kind of hard to "punish" mom. Usually with her brand newest man she just adds her tax free support check to the discretionary funding fund then goes back to court for more. Worked for my ex.
3-20-2010 @ 5:08PM
Misha748 said...WRONG!!!! In this day and age, the woman is NEVER responsible for the childs medical needs. The child is ALWAYS on the dads medical insurance or he is responsible and he always is the one that pays for their medication. When ever their is a custody issue in court, even if the descision is 50/50 the court descision always makes the father legally responsible to pay for medical insurance AND childcare. I know this for a fact, because i have a friend who is a support enforcer and she told me so. Woman can be really scummy and try to take advantage. I work at a childcare center and we have 2 children that attend and their mother is a real loser. they share the children almost 50/50, and he pays for the childcare and he is the one that pays the insurance. not only that but they are school aged children and when school age children have a no school day then they are supposed to bring their own lunch. our lunch is only for the full time, younger kids. when she brings them in then they are unwashed and she does not bring them with any food and they end up begging us and their friends for scraps of food and we end up feeding them because we are good people that dont want kids to go hungry, but when he brings them in they look clean and well cared for and they have food because he actually cares about them. the mother is a loser and she lied to the father and told them that the state was helping her pay for the childcare but he had to still pay $138 a week for childcare at a discounted rate. In reality she was paying for $138 A MONTH, and she was pocketing the extra $414 that he was giving her. then the children would always be with him in the middle of the week instead of weekends and she worked it out so that the kids were schedualed for dad only on the days and times he was working. and them when he brought the kids in she would complain to the state that he wasnt taking care of them and doing his responsibility even though all that money he is making is just to pay her support payment plus the money she is ripping off him in addition to his support payment with the cash that she is getting for the extra 414 dollars that she was embezzling off of him that in reality was not paying for childcare plus 500 dollars he pays for their medical coverage. when he brought the kids she would claim that he couldnt do that because her name was on the daycare contract as the person paying for childcare and he complained to us saying that with the $138 bucks a week he is paying that he should have the option of taking them to daycare when he needed to work, which is when we informed him that the 138 was for a month not a week, which is when he got really mad, and said that he was going to court, we havent heard the bitch complain about him recently or tell us not to let him bring them. She has a new boyfriend of course. the thing is, he is a way better parent then she is, at least he remembers to bring them in clean clothes, bathe them, and isnt lying to pilage the other parents hard worm cash, and with the extra money she was scamming from him, if you took the extra 414 per month times the 2 years we had them at the same rate it would equal about 10 thousand dollars. so for the 2 years we had them she scammed his ass out of 10k. That is alot of clothes. Damn, my college education was about that much. and she is low income supposedly and the government gives her clothes stipends and food stamps and he WIC and he doesnt get the stamps because she is the mother and even though they have them 50/50 they are claimed on her forms, but he is the only one i see that is actually feeding them.
3-20-2010 @ 5:59PM
Roo said...I agree, Jody. My ex used to take the kids to the walk-in clinic or ER every chance he could (on average, once a month) knowing full well that since I had primary custody, I'd get the medical bill. Even though he was supposed to reimburse me 50% of what insurance didn't cover, it would takes well over a year and at least 2 trips to court before I was reimbursed. And don't even get me started on how the insurance premiums were taken out of my check and he was supposed to reimburse me 50% of the children's portion of the premiums.
I'd rather see the laws change so that medical/dental bills are split in half and sent to each parent to handle. My credit sucks because he refused to reimburse me for anything.
3-20-2010 @ 7:28PM
tnthayes11 said...Hopefully, extra expenses will be considered in a divorce settlement.
But Misha...While not all people (be it a man or a woman) are fair, calling someone retarded and stupid is not going to solve anything. Insults will prevent anyone from seeing your point. Your statement about how your boyfriend has no money b/c he supports his ex by sending a child support check should be viewed as his supporting his child. He is putting a roof over the child's head, food in the child's mouth, etc. I'd like to know how she is supporting herself and her child on child support alone!!
This law, I believe, can be great in certain situations. In my situation, it wouldn't be. Only because my child couldn't handle the chaos that came with our agreement because of his dad's work schedule. I could have moved back home (I had no family near me because I had moved with my husband for his job to another state) , but I didn't move so that my son would be near his dad. I gave extra time in our decree, because I thought my child would need it. It turns out that it didn't work out that way. My son cried every time he had to leave to go until he was 8 years old. So the Tennessee idea would have been horrible for us. He now doesn't mind going to his dad's for the most part. Since a judge told my ex that he had not bonded with his son, he has tried somewhat to do so. My son recently had his appendix out and his father didn't EVEN bother to come to the hospital for his emergency appendectomy. (You couldn't have kept me away!!!!) Sometimes there IS a difference between men and women and where their kids are concerned. And that should be considered before passing a law that is simply not that black and white. Unfortunately, my ex is 'going to get his time' whether it is at the cost of my child or not (my child could have a complete emotional meltdown about not wanting to go with his dad), yet his dad doesn't even care. It is all about him. He forgets to pick him up sometimes. Tell me that if it was REALLY about getting to spend time with his child, he'd forget something like that. He'd be looking forward to it and counting down the days...not leaving him to wonder where he is. I know every situation is different as are the people involved and it should be treated on an individual basis for that reason alone.